January 2009 New Forest FC agreement

[The Wombles]

We are pleased to announce that the temporary ban on placement of geocaches on New Forest Forestry Commission land will be lifted when the new agreement comes into force on 1st January 2009.

The details of this agreement are posted in detail below, but for ease of reference the changes are listed here. All other details are unchanged from previous agreements.


Maximum number of geocaches increased to 150 from 100
When the total number of caches reaches 140 then all caches aged over 3 years are to be archived by their owners (this is an ongoing requirement giving a maximum 3 year life for all caches on the New Forest)
An individual cacher / team may own a maximum of 10 caches on the New Forest
Caches may only have one physical stage (including new multi caches)
Existing caches may remain under grandfather rights until they reach 3 years old AND the total of caches reaches 140



This agreement remains in place for one year; all details and requirements will remain under review.

The process for placement of geocachers continues unchanged for a geocache hider ie on the New Forest place your geocache in line with these requirements and the subsequent work is invisible to you. Nobby Nobbs has kindly agreed to undertake the ongoing responsibilities.

We are grateful to the Forestry Commission, Groundspeak Reviewers and others for contributing to the process and for making this agreement possible. The agreement represents considerable behind the scenes work and ensures that we will be able to manage geocaching on the New Forest in a fair and sustainable manner. We are reliant on all New Forest cachers for support and cooperation to ensure that we can continue to go geocaching on the New Forest.


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

The current agreement with the Forestry Commission in the New Forest has expired and a new agreement has been concluded allowing up to 150 caches to be placed in the forest. This new agreement comes into effect on the 1st January 2009. The agreement has taken some time to work out with the GAGB Committee working very hard with the Forestry Commission to ensure that Geocaching can continue to take place in the New Forest and that an increase in the numbers of caches has been allowed.
To allow everyone a fair opportunity to place their caches the new guidelines have been worked out by the GAGB Committee and Groundspeak volunteer reviewers. Cache owners are asked to cooperate with the GAGB Committee and Groundspeak volunteer reviewers with the administration of these guidelines. The Groundspeak volunteer reviewers will make the final decisions on whether a cache can be published or whether a cache is to be archived after taking advice about the cache from the GAGB committee and the Forestry Commission authorities.

THE PARTIES
The Forestry Commission, New Forest District hereinafter referred to as the Commission.

The Permit Holder: GAGB Committee represented by Dave Edwards hereinafter referred to as the Permit Holder.

THE RIGHTS GRANTED
Permission is given to the Permit Holder to use Commission land in the New Forest for Geocaching activities. The permission is subject to the following conditions:
1. The activities and their locations will be specified by the Deputy Surveyor and will be staged within the New Forest.
2. There will be no more than 150 caches in place in the New Forest.
3. When 140 caches have been placed any cache which is older than 3 years will be archived.
4. When 150 caches have been placed and there are no more to archive, any new caches will not be published.
5. Cache owners may only own 10 caches each. To place another cache a previous one they own must first be archived.
6. A cache can be a traditional, multi, mystery or Whereigo. If a multi, mystery or Whereigo it may have only one physical part, the final cache. Any intermediate stages must be in the form of ‘Questions to Answer’, or puzzles to solve. You cannot place intermediate cache/micro stages with clues or coordinates.
7. Caches will be submitted in the normal way for the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers to look at. If the cache meets the guidelines (these New Forest guidelines and the normal cache placement guidelines) it will be published and the reviewer will inform the GAGB who in turn will inform the Forestry Commission of the location.
8. All cache containers will be clearly marked ‘Geocache’, stating that the contents are harmless (no dangerous items, matches, knives, food, drink and no alcohol) with the cache owners e-mail address or other contact method. Note:These are the normal Geocaching guidelines. It is recommended an official Geocaching label is used on the cache container.
9. The cache container is to be plastic and no larger than 3 litre capacity with a secure waterproof ‘click lock’ type lid
10. Any cache currently in place that does not meet these guidelines will be considered ‘grandfathered in’ and remain until it meets the guideline at 3 when it too will be archived.
11. The responsibility for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe and suitable for the activities will rest with the Geocache owners/Geocachers and they will ensure that public rights of way are not impeded.
12. Geocache owners/Geocachers will pay compensation or make good to the Deputy Surveyor's satisfaction all damage to Commission property caused by the exercise of this permission. Geocache owners/Geocachers will clear all equipment and litter brought onto Commission land by them, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Surveyor.
13. Geocache owners /Geocachers will ensure proper consideration is given to protect safety of participants and members of the public likely to be within the vicinity of the activity, including the grazing by ponies and cattle belonging to New Forest Commoners.
14. Geocache owners /Geocachers will advise the Commission within 24 hours of the end of an activity of any accident to a participant, spectator, or third party which arises as a result of the exercise of this permission.
15. If the Commission's tenants and/or landlords or other persons having an interest in the land are likely to be affected by this permission, then the Permit Holder will notify the relevant Geocache Placer.
16. The Deputy Surveyor will ensure that all relevant forest district staff are notified of the permission and the approved routes or areas to be used.
17. Geocache owners /Geocachers will ensure that no vehicles owned or used by them enter Commission land, except for parking in recognised car parks.
18. The Permit Holder will ensure that the Forestry Commission Byelaws are observed, except as expressly authorised by this Agreement. A copy of the Byelaws will be supplied on request by the Deputy Surveyor. In particular the Permit Holder will ensure:
· there is no lighting of fires
· all gates are left in the position as found
· reasonable care is taken to prevent disturbance to wild fauna and flora and to commoning livestock
· compliance with any instructions issued by the Deputy Surveyor or his authorised representative.
· there is to be no disturbance to the general public


19. Overnight parking in Forestry Commission car parks is against the Byelaws.
20. The Commission reserves the right to revoke this permission at any time by notice given to the Permit Holder in writing. If the revocation is to meet Commission requirements a refund of the charge will be made unless a suitable alternative location can be provided. If the revocation is required as a result of default by the Permit Holder or any representative no refund will be made.
21. Nothing in this permission shall be construed as creating a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

[COLOR=black]22. Night caching will not be permitted.[COLOR=black]

[Alan White]

Any possibility there might have been of my joining the GAGB has been removed by this "agreement".

Enforced archiving and a limit on cache ownership at the behest of GAGB? I don't think so :mad:.

[Mongoose39uk]

While I appreciate your point Alan.

What would your preference be no caches. That is what the situation was originally and it took a lot of hard work to get any agreement at all.

That agreement ran out and people wanted more cache sin the area. We were given a limit. It is more than likely we wont reach that limit so the archiving situation may not arise. If it does then it is the only way for new caches and fresh areas to be developed. A lot of people have put a lot of time in over the last few weeks to try and get something that may work.

Perhaps you should think about that before presenting your ill informed opinion?

Please feel free to flame me/abuse me etc. I will not be wasting any more words on you.

Please note this is me speaking not the GAGB committee

[Matrix]

Any possibility there might have been of my joining the GAGB has been removed by this "agreement".

Enforced archiving and a limit on cache ownership at the behest of GAGB? I don't think so .

So you would rather have no caches at all in that area then ?

I have been negotiating with a land manager for the last 12 months about setting caches and they set out some provisions.

1. Maximum of 5 caches on the land

2. Only I am allowed to place the caches .

Now I have no problem with the maximum number provision but I did not like the restriction on who could set them, however after chatting to a few locals including someone who had asked the land manager and been refused previously I decided that if it meant that caches could be set there then I needed to go ahead and hopefully at least one cache will be set in the next couple of weeks.

So if the land owner/manager has some provisions and they are not to restrictive then I don't see a problem. We have more restrictions on the types of caches (virtuals etc) from groundspeak that are in my opinion a greater problem.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Sorry Allan but your dumping all the responsibility onto the GAGB, GC's UK Reviewers and the Landowner were involved in the dicision making proccess as well. Of course the New Forest could have stated that the Life of a cache is just One Year before having to be uplifted [this is what happens in many areas in the US, so please do not attack the GAGB for coming up with a better sollution].

At the end of the day apart from any Navicache or Terracaching caches which get placed within the NF boundaries so coming under the agreement. It's going to be the GC Reviewers who have to enforce this agreement on behalf of both the GAGB & NF.

Another restriction faced by US Cachers which the GAGB have in most cases* negotiated out include, the payment of a annual fee. US Cachers also face huge areas [total area is larger than the whole of the UK] which are permenantly out of bounds [that includes a area of Washington DC, where only virtuals could be placed].

So to summerise I'd say the NF Agreement is not restrictive, and allows for a flow of New caches once the limit has been reached. The alternative being GC's UK Reviewers jumping on cache owners within the NF if their cache was inactive for more than 2/3 weeks, and Archiving after 6/8 weeks. A case of a extremly restrictive application of the Guidelines. A situation we do not wish to see happen.

*The one exception to the requirment that the GAGB was not able to negoitiate out, was the FC North West Regions requirement for a payment of £50 for a 3 year permit. Something that to date no one has purchased one. We face a sittuation of if just one person purchaces a permit. All FC Areas and the NT will charge a fee for a permit.

Now thats what I'd describe as realy restrictive.

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

[Bill D (wwh)]

Alan, we weren't at all happy about having to introduce forced archiving, but the alternative was for the New Forest to become a no-go area for new caches.

GAGB's committee, the UK gc.com reviewers and the Forestry Commission have worked together for some considerable time to achieve this new agreement, and I at least am delighted that we've been able to come up with a way of allowing new caches to be placed in the Forest for the foreseeable future.

[Happy Humphrey]

After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion :eek:, I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments. :)

[Mongoose39uk]

After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion :eek:, I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments. :)

Comments are welcome, you have a right to make them. However others also have the right to reply and that includes me.

[Happy Humphrey]

I dunno. I think that this is more of an 'announcement' than a discussion thread, so if people want to risk making comments it may be worth opening a new thread.

[Bill D (wwh)]

After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion :eek:, I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments. :)
As Tony has said, comments are welcome. I don't see that Alan has been badly treated in any way. He posted his opinion, which he's absolutely entitled to do, and others including myself have disagreed with him, which we're equally entitled to do.

If you want to give us your thoughts on the agreement then you're welcome to. I do agree, though, that this thread is really intended as an announcement, not a place for discussion, so perhaps any further discussion could take place in the New Forest Landowner Agreement thread, which isn't pinned and is intended for discussion.

[uktim]

As Tony has said, comments are welcome. I don't see that Alan has been badly treated in any way. He posted his opinion, which he's absolutely entitled to do, and others including myself have disagreed with him, which we're equally entitled to do.

If you want to give us your thoughts on the agreement then you're welcome to. I do agree, though, that this thread is really intended as an announcement, not a place for discussion, so perhaps any further discussion could take place in the New Forest Landowner Agreement thread, which isn't pinned and is intended for discussion.


I think the crucial question that many of us will be wondering about is where did the concept of a 3 year limit come from? Unless it was specifically requested by the FC it looks an awful lot like an unfortunate case of the GAGB making up rules without adequate consultation.

I feel that Alan was treated rather badly when a member of the GAGB commitee announced that he wasn't prepared to enter into further discusion on the matter. Any committee member that isn't prepared to discuss such issues should maybe rethink their post on the committee?

[Mongoose39uk]

I am quite happy to discuss this situation, however from experience I know that discussions with some people are not productive for either party.

[uktim]

I am quite happy to discuss this situation, however from experience I know that discussions with some people are not productive for either party.

If you're not going to discuss it's not very civil to jump in and tell someone that their perfectly valid opinion is ill-informed.

[Graculus]

I think I'm missing something here, I thought it had been discussed already here (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1459).

[Brenin Tegeingl]

After seeing how Alan was treated after offering his opinion :eek:, I'll keep my thoughts to myself!

Perhaps it would be best to lock the thread if you don't want comments. :)

Funny isn't it how what is concidered to be a constructive post by some is concidered to be a attack by others.

Having been on the recieving end of what I and others concidered to be attacks yet others concidered to be constuctive posts, I can only apolagise to Alan if he feels my post was a Attack. I sincerly meant it to be a constuctive post!

Deceangi

[The Wombles]

Agreed, views about how to manage the cache numbers were canvassed in that thread for example:


I have positive indications from the FC for an increase but don't expect a huge increase and they expect us to manage the numbers in the future. They haven't actually said that they won't ever increase the numbers in the future but it's clear we won't be able to go back again in the near future.

Consequently, I'd like to get peoples' ideas on how the numbers should be managed. For example, we are limited to the total number of physical containers, how would people feel about a rile of one container per cache? How about a limit on the lifetime of a cache? Dizzy Pair suggested a 500m proximity rule? Any other ideas?

[DizzyPair]

As we are 'local' to the New Forest, we would like to state that we are satisfied with the recently published agreement. As has already been mentioned, the permission for 150 caches is far better than no permission or a 'monetary charge' for placing caches.
As far as we are concerned, the committee and probably others have put a lot of time and effort into getting the number of agreed caches increased.
There was plenty of time for people to discuss, and propose ideas yet we have seen almost nothing posted.
But now the new agreement has been 'announced,' all and sundry see fit to moan about it!

[Bill D (wwh)]

I think the crucial question that many of us will be wondering about is where did the concept of a 3 year limit come from? Unless it was specifically requested by the FC it looks an awful lot like an unfortunate case of the GAGB making up rules without adequate consultation.

I feel that Alan was treated rather badly when a member of the GAGB commitee announced that he wasn't prepared to enter into further discusion on the matter. Any committee member that isn't prepared to discuss such issues should maybe rethink their post on the committee?
As has already been said, the possibility of a limit was put up for discussion, but no-one took up that opportunity, so I don't think it's fair to use the term "without adequate consultation".

The concept of a limit on the life of a cache is by no means a new one, and as Mancunian (Deceangi) has pointed out, in the States there are agreements which impose a one year limit. Taken in that context I think a three year limit is very reasonable.

Regarding Tony's post, he made it quite clear that he was speaking personally, and not as a committee member.

[jacobite]

In an ideal world, there would be no limit to the number of caches that could be placed in the New Forest, with no time limit imposed on them should the agreed 150 be reached. Unfortunately we don't live in that place, and a number of factors (a large number) have to be taken into consideration. I can tell you that thought out this process, the GAGB and GSP UK reviewing team have worked very hard to find the best possible solution for the benefit of ALL UK cachers.
While I appreciate that the time limit (should 150 be reached) will effect a small number of cache placers, without it, you would effectively excluded other cachers from placing caches within the New Forest area.
The time limit will also ensure that cachers new and old will be draw back to the area, which I believe acts in the best interests of geocaching in the UK.

Alan, I'm sorry that you feel unable to join (support?) the GAGB in regards to this matter, but please be assured that we (and the GSP UK reviewers) are not trying to be restrictive, but find the best way forward for the benefit of all UK cachers.

Edit: I know the time limit comes into forced at 140, although from reading my post this may not seem apparent.

[Alan White]

This is my first opportunity to return to this thread - indeed, this forum - since the holiday. I didn't really expect a debate: I simply wanted to state my view. I don't feel attacked at all*: the whole purpose of any forum is for everyone to express their views provided that's done in a civil way.

I commented on the NF "agreement" in its original form some time ago. Indeed that agreement was and is the principal reason why I haven't joined GAGB. I believe that even in its original form the agreement is detrimental to cachers (item 11, among many, being a particularly foolish one for GAGB to agree to).

My point was, and is, that it's not up to GAGB to determine when a cache should be removed or how many caches a cacher is allowed to have. Those are matters for the cache owner in conjunction with their chosen listing sites. I think it laughable that an organisation which purports to look after the interests of cachers demonstrates that by placing arbitrary limits on the activity.

Not unreasonably, I've been asked what I would do to solve the problem. This is easy: there isn't a problem that needs solving. The original agreement specified 100 caches; that limit was reached so no more caches can be placed until one is archived naturally. This is no different from any other area: I can't place a (Groundspeak-listed) cache within 161m of another (Groundspeak-listed) cache. It's first-come, first-gets-the-hiding-place. If I can't place a cache in the first spot I find then I'll look somewhere else. There are millions of places to hide a cache. Why does the NF require a special rule?

That takes care of the 100 "problem": now for the time limit. What that achieves is to provide new caches, close to and possibly even in the same place as the original. What's the point of that? I don't like being taken back to the same hiding place - something which seems to be becoming more and more common - but that's just a personal preference. The real problem with the time limit is that it ensures that more cachers will visit that area because they'll want to get the new cache. This isn't good for the environment. Lastly, who says that the new cache will be better than the previous one? A time limit is just a way of ensuring that what may be a perfectly good cache is removed in order to make way for another. I ask again: why does the NF require a special rule?

I think that there is a tendency in recent times - due partly to the advent of large cache series - for a cacher to place "too many" caches. I'm sure we've all seen cachers with hundreds of caches and Needs Maintenance notes on many of them for long periods. That said, my point is that it's not for the GAGB to mandate the number of caches I may own, and still less for Groundspeak or any other listing site to enforce it unless it's part of the site's own guidelines.

No doubt GAGB can clarify, but I doubt that NF says - or cares - that each cacher can own only ten caches. I suspect the same applies to the time limit and the stage limit. In other words, GAGB, with the participation of an American-owned company, is mandating rules that go far beyond those needed to comply with the wishes of the land manager.

It's been suggested that the limit of 150 is unlikely to be reached so the issues I'm so concerned about won't arise. Firstly, with the growth in cache placement I think we can be very certain that the new limit will be reached very quickly. Secondly, it's not specifically the time limit or limit on ownership in this agreement that concerns me but rather the precedents that they represent.

Which answers the question of why I didn't comment before: the discussion was about what to do with a problem which I don't believe exists in an area that doesn't interest me. So I didn't feel any need to comment. However, once published the new agreement contains things which GAGB and/or Groundspeak may choose to apply in other areas. This agreement sets bad precedents, hence why I choose to comment now.


* Except for the continued misspelling of my name, which I now can only assume is done deliberately in order to wind me up :mad:.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

* Except for the continued misspelling of my name, which I now can only assume is done deliberately in order to wind me up :mad:.Sorry but my misspelling which was pointed out to me after I had posted, comes from 2 reasons. One of which is very well known.

I can't spell correctly to save my life

Secondly from being a young child, I've had a friend whose name is spelt Allan, so it's just force of habit for me.

Oh and in the case of the New Forest Agreement, the agreement is unusual in that the Placement Permission has been given specifically to the GAGB and not for Individual cachers. So as far as the NF Admin are concerned it is the GAGB who have placed the caches and are responcible for them. Not the cache owner


1 THE PARTIES

The Forestry Commission, New Forest District hereinafter referred to as the Commission.

The Permit Holder: GAGB Committee represented by Dave Edwards hereinafter referred to as the Permit Holder.

2 THE RIGHTS GRANTED

Permission is given to the Permit Holder to use Commission land in the New Forest for Geocaching activities. The permission is subject to the following conditions: And can we clear up on thing Groundspeak have had nothing to do with the discusions or implimentation of the Agreement. Site Volunteers were involved in discusions, and will be responcible for actioning the agreement on behalf of the Landowner and Permit Holder (The GAGB) just like we action all other Landowner Agreements.

Deci

!

[Bill D (wwh)]

I've been away without internet access since Saturday afternoon, so I have only just caught up with this thread.

As Deci has said, Groundspeak weren't involved at all in drawing up this agreement, only the volunteer UK cache reviewers, and their input was extremely useful.

As the GAGB committee is the Permit Holder I think we do have the right to set the conditions. Ultimately it's us whom the NF FC hold responsible for caches in the Forest.

The limited life condition is not setting a precedent - as has been said earlier in this thread that's a common condition in landowner agreements in the US, and I think it was always inevitable that it would be used over here too.

The reason for only allowing multis to have virtual stages except for the final container is that the FC's limit on numbers applies to containers, not to caches, and we felt that it was better to allow more actual caches than would have been possible if physical early stages of multis were permitted.

We decided on a limit of ten caches per cacher/caching team precisely because of the fact that some cachers do place large numbers of caches, and with a limit of just 150 containers in a large area we thought it fairer to ensure that no-one "hogged" the Forest. At the moment there are only 3 cachers/caching teams with more than ten caches there - one of those is a committee member and another has said publicly that they support the new agreement.

[nobbynobbs]

and that particular committee member fully intends to reduce his numbers despite the fact I could sit back and leave them out there.

Personally I'm more than happy with the agreement as it stands and knowing lots of the cachers in the area I've only had positive feedback.

[Alan White]

the agreement is unusual in that the Placement Permission has been given specifically to the GAGB and not for Individual cachers. So as far as the NF Admin are concerned it is the GAGB who have placed the caches and are responcible for them. Not the cache owner
I don't read that at all. The agreement frequently refers to "Geocache owners/Geocachers". Since these aren't defined then it's reasonable to apply our usual interpretations. "Geocache owners" = the person who physically placed the cache and/or whose account it's listed under; "Geocachers" = people other than "Geocache owners" who play the game of geocaching. No mention of GAGB at all.

I don't see your quote in the agreement either, so I don't know where that came from :confused:.


And can we clear up on thing Groundspeak have had nothing to do with the discusions or implimentation of the Agreement. Site Volunteers were involved in discusions, and will be responcible for actioning the agreement on behalf of the Landowner and Permit Holder (The GAGB)
I don't see that either. In fact, according to the agreement Groundspeak had and have significant involvement in it. Groundspeak, in the form of its reviewers, were involved in the discussions ("We are grateful to the Forestry Commission, Groundspeak Reviewers and others for contributing to the process and for making this agreement possible."; "the new guidelines have been worked out by the GAGB Committee and Groundspeak volunteer reviewers") and Groundspeak are responsible for "actioning the agreement".

The agreement shouldn't even mention Groundspeak: GAGB should not favour any one listing site.

[Alan White]

As Deci has said, Groundspeak weren't involved at all in drawing up this agreement, only the volunteer UK cache reviewers
That made me smile :). How do you see the Groundspeak reviewers as different from Groundspeak?


As the GAGB committee is the Permit Holder I think we do have the right to set the conditions.
I don't see where it says that GAGB committee is the Permit Holder but in any case since GAGB committee aren't the only ones who may place caches in the NF then don't you think that other cachers should have some input? Or is GAGB setting itself up as an autonomous caching organisation and all other cachers should just do as they're told?


The limited life condition is not setting a precedent
That's rather disingenuous. Are you seriously suggesting that the next time a similar situation arises that the immediate and obvious suggestion won't be to archive some existing caches?


The reason...
I understand all the reasoning: I don't agree with it and still less do I think that it's the remit of GAGB.

[Matrix]

I typed a reply to this but then thought better of it as I dont actually want to set a cache in the new forest but I do have a question .


Would you prefer that there were no caches in the new forest ?



Matrix who's middle name is Allan coincidentally

[Bill D (wwh)]

>>That made me smile :). How do you see the Groundspeak reviewers as different from Groundspeak?

They are volunteers who were speaking personally.

>>I don't see where it says that GAGB committee is the Permit Holder but in any case since GAGB committee aren't the only ones who may place caches in the NF then don't you think that other cachers should have some input? Or is GAGB setting itself up as an autonomous caching organisation and all other cachers should just do as they're told?

Mancunian (Deci) has already quoted the part of the agreement which clearly states that GAGB's committee is the Permit Holder. I see no point in quoting it again.

Of course we're not setting ourselves up as an autonomous caching organization. We asked for input. That has already been discussed in this thread.

>>That's rather disingenuous. Are you seriously suggesting that the next time a similar situation arises that the immediate and obvious suggestion won't be to archive some existing caches?

I stated that the limited life condition does not set a precedent. As has been said above by myself and others agreements with limited life conditions have been in existence for a long time. The precedent had long since been set.

>>I understand all the reasoning: I don't agree with it and still less do I think that it's the remit of GAGB.

There, as on so much, we disagree, and no doubt will continue to do so.

[jacobite]

Alan, There are many points in your previous posts that I would like to deal with, however, I believe that we would only go round in circles attempting to debate them.

The only one I'd like to comment on is your belief that the GAGB are in some way too closely involved with one listing site (namely GSP), which I can assure you is not the case! The reason the GAGB and GSP UK reviewing team work together regarding permission agreements, is to ensure a smooth transition between the conditions of the agreement and the placement/management of caches in the agreed area.
I believe the other listing sites have been offered the opportunity to join these discussions in the past, but for a number of reason have been unable to do so. I would hope that in future, representatives from Terracaching and Navicache could be involved in these discussions, thus dispelling the myth that the GAGB favours one listing site.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I believe the other listing sites have been offered the opportunity to join these discussions in the past, but for a number of reason have been unable to do so. I would hope that in future, representatives from Terracaching and Navicache could be involved in these discussions, thus dispelling the myth that the GAGB favours one listing site.
Yes, that's true. Despite many attempts we've been unable to enter into any dialogue with NC or TC.

[Alan White]

Would you prefer that there were no caches in the new forest ?
I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF. We all know the history of caching in that area and the land manager agreed to caches on certain conditions. My point is that those conditions do not include time limits and limits on cache ownership. These have been imposed by GAGB and are enforced by Groundspeak.

[Alan White]

Mancunian (Deci) has already quoted the part of the agreement which clearly states that GAGB's committee is the Permit Holder. I see no point in quoting it again.Well, you're going to have to because nowhere in the OP detailing the agreement can I see a definition of "Permit Holder".


Of course we're not setting ourselves up as an autonomous caching organization. We asked for input.And how many GAGB members said they'd like restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime? More importantly, how many GB cachers said so?

In the other thread I can see a couple of people suggesting the restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime, but there was no suggestion that these restrictions would be imposed. Only after the agreement was published could we see what GAGB has done.


I stated that the limited life condition does not set a precedent. As has been said above by myself and others agreements with limited life conditions have been in existence for a long time.Perhaps you could point me at another such agreement in GB?


There, as on so much, we disagree, and no doubt will continue to do so.Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with that. But neither will I remain silent when I see problems with a hobby I enjoy, especially when those problems are caused by the very organisation which should be helping GB cachers rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions on them. There was not a problem: GAGB has made one, not just for the New Forest but for all caching in GB.

[Alan White]

The only one I'd like to comment on is your belief that the GAGB are in some way too closely involved with one listing site (namely GSP), which I can assure you is not the case! The reason the GAGB and GSP UK reviewing team work together regarding permission agreements, is to ensure a smooth transition between the conditions of the agreement and the placement/management of caches in the agreed area.
Oh come, you must see that GAGB and Groundspeak are closely involved with each other. This agreement mentions Groundspeak several times and it even acknowledges Groundspeak's assistance in producing the agreement. If GAGB were listing site agnostic then the agreement would refer to "listing sites" not "Groundspeak".

The only reason an agreement like this works is because Groundspeak enforces it. Without that the agreement would be worthless.

[Matrix]

These have been imposed by GAGB and are enforced by Groundspeak.

Surely these are limits that the land owner/manager is comfortable with not something the GAGB has plucked out of thin air?

Or are you suggesting that the GAGB is a dark force with power to influence the Forestry Commisions decision making polices ?

[Alan White]

Surely these are limits that the land owner/manager is comfortable with not something the GAGB has plucked out of thin air?My interpretation - in this thread I have asked for but not yet received confirmation - is that with the exception of the revised 150 limit all the limits are imposed by GAGB not NF.

I can entirely understand that NF would want to limit the total number of caches. I doubt that they care whether a single cacher owns 10 caches or the whole 150.

Dark force? No. The power to influence? I hope so: there's not point in it otherwise.

[Mrs Blorenge]

I've just had a chance to have a look at this matter and play "catch up" after Christmas.

It all seems a perfectly reasonable agreement to me. I haven't seen any adverse comments from cachers from the southern region as yet, only positive ones. I don't live within the NF area but if I did I would find it very acceptable. I'm sure that any unforseen 'problems' that may arise over the coming year can be tweaked/amended as necessary when it gets reviewed again.

Well done to all those who've been working on this for months.

:cheers:

[Bill D (wwh)]

>>Well, you're going to have to because nowhere in the OP detailing the agreement can I see a definition of "Permit Holder".

I beg your pardon, Alan, I should have checked. That was in the original agreement and successive renewals, but it seems to have slipped through in the new version and no-one noticed. It should be in there and I've proposed that it be included again.

>>And how many GAGB members said they'd like restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime? More importantly, how many GB cachers said so?

It was put up for discussion, as I've said before. You can't blame the committee if there turned out to be little interest amongst the membership in discussing it.

>>In the other thread I can see a couple of people suggesting the restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime, but there was no suggestion that these restrictions would be imposed. Only after the agreement was published could we see what GAGB has done.

Most if not all landowner agreements have restrictions. There is rarely if ever any public discussion of them, and indeed quite a few blanket agreements are reached between the landowner and an individual cacher, and no-one else knows anything about the restrictions until the agreement is published. As I've already said, we did provide the opportunity for discussion.

>>Perhaps you could point me at another such agreement in GB?

Neither I nor anyone else has said that there are other such agreements in GB - I don't know whether there are or not. But what has been said is that such agreements are common in the US, and it would be naive in the extreme to believe that they wouldn't sooner or later occur here - the precedent had already been set.

>>Indeed, and there's nothing wrong with that. But neither will I remain silent when I see problems with a hobby I enjoy, especially when those problems are caused by the very organisation which should be helping GB cachers rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions on them. There was not a problem: GAGB has made one, not just for the New Forest but for all caching in GB.

Alan, I'm not for a moment suggesting that you remain silent. There were aspects of this agreement that I wasn't happy with myself, but I consider that the final agreement is, on balance, a good thing. You don't, and we're never going to agree on that, but I'm not asking you to remain silent about it.

[DrDick&Vick]

Having just sat and read through the agreement I honestly feel that the GAGB has got us a fair deal and the restrictions that are being talked about seem to me to be fair. Why should a cacher complain about being restricted to a maximum of 10 caches in one area when it means that others may have the chance to hide one/some of their own. If I wanted to place a cache but was refused because another cacher had 20 - 40 caches hidden in an area where there was a ceiling limit I would not be very happy and feel that the other cacher was being somewhat selfish.
Being a relative newcomer to caching and both the GC & GAGB forums I cannot believe how much backbiting there is when in reality the majority just want to go out and hunt boxes and enjoy ourselves. :dunno:
If the GAGB have negotiated the agreement and are listed as the Permit Holder then it is right that they should be involved in setting any sensible restrrictions.

[The Wombles]

In the other thread I can see a couple of people suggesting the restrictions on cache ownership and lifetime, but there was no suggestion that these restrictions would be imposed. Only after the agreement was published could we see what GAGB has done.


Alan, the other thread includes the following:



However, the important point is that I'm not looking for negotiation ideas but rather how we will manage cache numbers within their limit in the future?


I'm delighted to announce that the New Forest Forestry Commission have kindly agreed to increase our cache limit from 100 to 150 physical caches with effect from 1st January 2009, our agreement renewal date. I'd like to thank them for this.

Discussion with the FC has highlighted that the caching community will need to manage numbers within this total so any other cache management ideas / discussion can be posted here.

[Alan White]

You can't blame the committee if there turned out to be little interest amongst the membership in discussing it.Of course, but I think the problem here is the way in which the issues were presented. As I said, I ignored the original thread because it was discussing an update to an agreement in an area which didn't interest me. Others may have ignored the thread for the same reason. What I didn't expect was for restrictions to be placed in the agreement which firstly aren't necessary for the functioning of the agreement and secondly were no more than ideas floated in the thread. That is, until after the agreement was published and we find that those ideas have been incorporated into the agreement without any further discussion.



Most if not all landowner agreements have restrictions.Certainly, but there is a difference between restrictions which are required by the land manager and those which cachers impose on themselves. I am still waiting for the confirmation that the lifetime and cache ownership limits are in the agreement because GAGB wants them not because NF wants them.



Neither I nor anyone else has said that there are other such agreements in GB - I don't know whether there are or not.I'm sure we would know. An agreement isn't much use unless it's documented and published, and I don't know of anywhere else other than here where it would be.

A precedent set in the USA isn't a precedent set in GB. A precedent set in one US state isn't relevant in another, and what happens in another country with different customs and laws is irrelevant here. The restrictions in this agreement set precedents which could significantly affect caching in GB.


I'm not for a moment suggesting that you remain silent.I know, but the difficulty is where we go from here: simply agreeing to disagree doesn't resolve or even debate the underlying problems that have surfaced here. The GAGB - or more accurately a handful of cachers who happen to be GAGB members - have "agreed" to an "agreement" which is not only worthless (because it's unlikely that anyone is legally bound by it) but is also detrimental to caching because of clauses like 11 and the new lifetime and cache ownership limits.

[Alan White]

Why should a cacher complain about being restricted to a maximum of 10 caches in one area when it means that others may have the chance to hide one/some of their own. If I wanted to place a cache but was refused because another cacher had 20 - 40 caches hidden in an area where there was a ceiling limit I would not be very happy and feel that the other cacher was being somewhat selfish.
This is one of things I don't understand about this, so perhaps you can help me to see why it's a problem. If an area is worthy of a cache and the cache is being maintained, why does it matter who owns it? There are plenty of places to hide caches: if the chosen area is "full" then it's easy to find somewhere else, is it not?

[Alan White]

Alan, the other thread includes the following:Yes, and that's all it says. It doesn't say "NF demand that each cacher owns ten caches or fewer" or "caches can live for only three years". It asks for ideas on how to manage the caches to keep them within the 150 limit. For Groundspeak-listed caches this isn't a problem (and shouldn't have been a problem under the 100 limit) as the Groundspeak reviewers have offered to keep an eye on the number. GAGB can do little about Terracaches, Navicaches, caches listed elsewhere, letterboxes, or anything similar.

So the answer to the "how do we manage cache numbers" question is that Groundspeak do it. That's the best that can be achieved, as GAGB has no power (and no authority) and the only mechanism that GAGB has to manage the numbers relies on Groundspeak not publishing, or forcing archiving.

But this isn't what you meant by "managing the numbers". You meant, it seems, how do we prevent one cacher from owning "too many" caches or for keeping them for "too long"? But those questions presuppose that there's a problem, and where we differ is that I don't believe that there is.

If it's acceptable, outside NF, for a cacher to place 100 caches on a circular walk (thereby, assuming Groundspeak, preventing any other cacher from using the same circular walk) why is it not acceptable for one cacher to own 150 caches in the NF? I don't see the difference: cache placement has always been first-come, first-served and I don't see a need to change that.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Alan from the Full version not the revised section which had originally been posted (see top of the page for the full version) The GAGB are the permit holders for permission to place Geocaches within the New Forest. Which means they manage Geocaching within the New Forest on behalf of the Landowner. As such any person placing a Geocache within the area whatever Listing Site they intend to use is subject to the Placement Agreement.

The GAGB are the ones who are controling No's in the Agreement Area not GC Reviewers. The GC Reviewers will action GC caches covered under the agreement, just like we would all other Landowner Agreements. The Reviewers from other Listing Sites should be following exactly the same actions for any caches listed on their site. The Agreement has specific restrictions as part of the managment of Geocaching within the Area.


If it's acceptable, outside NF, for a cacher to place 100 caches on a circular walk (thereby, assuming Groundspeak, preventing any other cacher from using the same circular walk) why is it not acceptable for one cacher to own 150 caches in the NF? I don't see the difference: cache placement has always been first-come, first-served and I don't see a need to change that.Sorry but thats not accurate, each cache has a 528ft/161m Proximity protection zone around it. Other cachers could come along and place 100 on either side of or between these caches.

The New Forest is different in that not only is there proximity protection. There is also a Number restriction in a area which could easily accomindate 3 or 4 times the maximum of 150 caches. So it's not just a case of First come First served, but first come controls the whole area including parts km's away from the container. Now that is a huge proximity protection zone.

Which is why the 3 year lifetime for a cache was brought in, to open up what is the biggest proximity protection zone, in the world for caches listed on Geocaching.com (I can't comment about Navicache & Terracaching)

Deci

[The Hornet]

That made me smile :). How do you see the Groundspeak reviewers as different from Groundspeak?

I must admit that it is only recently that I have started following this discussion and I have surprised myself at my reactions to the various arguments and counter-arguments that are being made. Various people have said things which have caused me to question my own thoughts. But that's for me to work out.

I would just like to comment on the point about the independence of so called "UK Volunteers". As I spent several years as one of these mythical beasts (:lol:) I can assure everybody that they are most definitely expected to follow Groundspeak's orders and views on how the game of Geocaching should develop. They are in place to enforce Groundspeak's vision of Geocaching and as such represent Groundspeak every bit as much as if Jeremy Irish were still reviewing every cache for publication on his website.

It was that very lack of meaningful independence that led to my leaving the post last year.

[t.a.folk]

There is already the "handicap" of the coast being nearby,meaning there is only just over 180degrees of land on which to find caches.
Can't imagine that many keen local cachers would be happy with a long term static 150 caches .
Has anyone local yet said they would be ?

One local cacher already relocates some of his caches after they've been out a while and gives same title with edition II etc and different G.C. number.
If one of his caches goes missing he relaces in a slightly different location with a new edition and G.C. number .
Would both examples still be allowed when 150 reached ?

[Mongoose39uk]

One thing that should perhaps be remembered is that not all the land in the area is owned by the Forestry Commission. This agreement is purely for Forestry Commission land.

[Matrix]

I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF. We all know the history of caching in that area and the land manager agreed to caches on certain conditions. My point is that those conditions do not include time limits and limits on cache ownership. These have been imposed by GAGB and are enforced by Groundspeak.

Ok so why not join the GAGB and stand for election to the committee if you feel so strongly ?

[t.a.folk]

Can't imagine that many keen local cachers would be happy with a long term static 150 caches .


By "long term static 150 " we didn't mean "only 150 caches" ,
we meant "150 caches that have as the same G.C. numbers in XYZ years time as now" .

[Alan White]

By "long term static 150 " we didn't mean "only 150 caches" ,
we meant "150 caches that have as the same G.C. numbers in XYZ years time as now" .
This is a personal preference of course, but I wouldn't mind that one bit. In fact, it's my preferred method of caching as I like to visit new places and I like to find all the caches in an area.

But bear in mind that caches don't last for ever: they get replaced naturally. Of the 45,000 (Groundspeak-listed) caches that have ever been placed in GB around 9,000 (20%) have been archived. You can look at this two ways: either the 3-year lifetime will never be a problem because natural replacement will ensure that the area is refreshed; or the lifetime isn't necessary because the area will be refreshed naturally. Either way, it doesn't need to be in the agreement :D.

[Alan White]

Ok so why not join the GAGB and stand for election to the committee if you feel so strongly ?Ah, the old "it's easier to change from within" gambit?

The trouble is, to join GAGB - as with any organisation - requires that I agree with the aims, objectives and the very thinking behind the organisation. I don't have any of that with GAGB so joining would be very hypocritical and would almost certainly be seen - not entirely inaccurately - as an attempt to mould GAGB to something closer to my own thinking.

That said, bear in mind that at the recent elections I was actually nominated for chairman. Being a non-member I had to immediately decline so we'll never know where that might have gone.

[Alan White]

Various people have said things which have caused me to question my own thoughts. But that's for me to work out.And when you've done so, Peter, it would be interesting to hear what they are. The views of a long-standing, respected cacher with your experience cannot be anything but illuminating.

[Alan White]

(see top of the page for the full version) The GAGB are the permit holders for permission to place Geocaches within the New Forest.
Yes, the OP has been changed today to add that in so it does make more sense now. However - and this is really going over old ground as I made this point when the original agreement was published - the permission is for the permit holder to place caches. In other words, only GAGB committee can place caches in NF.


Which means they manage Geocaching within the New Forest on behalf of the Landowner.
No, it does not mean that at all. NF may think that that's what the agreement means but GAGB aren't in a position to manage caching for anyone except themselves and, possibly, for their members.


As such any person placing a Geocache within the area whatever Listing Site they intend to use is subject to the Placement Agreement.
Sorry, wrong again. The parties to an agreement cannot join other parties to that agreement without the third party's knowledge and consent. If a Terracacher wants to place a cache in NF the only thing that will stop him is his Terracaching sponsors. If I want to place a cache in NF and list it on my own site nothing in this agreement can stop me doing it.


Sorry but thats not accurate, each cache has a 528ft/161m Proximity protection zone around it. Other cachers could come along and place 100 on either side of or between these caches.You know exactly what I was saying: why try to derail the debate? Most such rings are designed with the caches so close together that it's impossible (assuming Groundspeak) to put other caches inbetween them. The point is that the NF does not need to be, and should not be, any different from any other area in how many caches a person can own or how long a cache should last.

[Matrix]

Ah, the old "it's easier to change from within" gambit?

The trouble is, to join GAGB - as with any organisation - requires that I agree with the aims, objectives and the very thinking behind the organisation. I don't have any of that with GAGB so joining would be very hypocritical and would almost certainly be seen - not entirely inaccurately - as an attempt to mould GAGB to something closer to my own thinking.

That said, bear in mind that at the recent elections I was actually nominated for chairman. Being a non-member I had to immediately decline so we'll never know where that might have gone.

So what are you going to do ? Because we are just going around and around achieving nothing and its not a gambit its a proven way to change things.

There is a saying that comes to mind right now ...

Put up or shut up :eek:

Apologies in advance for any offence it is not my intention to offend.

[DrDick&Vick]

Totally agree with Matrix's last staement, I have left other forums because there are members who just want to moan about everything and anything.
Me I enjoy caching and will abide by whatever rules there are that will allow me to continue to enjoy my Hobby/Game/Passtime.
I shall continue to look in now and then but for now
DrDick&Vick have left the building(Forum) :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:

[nobbynobbs]

Sorry, wrong again. The parties to an agreement cannot join other parties to that agreement without the third party's knowledge and consent. If a Terracacher wants to place a cache in NF the only thing that will stop him is his Terracaching sponsors. If I want to place a cache in NF and list it on my own site nothing in this agreement can stop me doing it.

.


except for the minor point that placed without permission it actually technically becomes litter effectively.

This is a merry little argument from yourself Alan, you profess to not care about caching in the area, you refuse to stand to see whether anyone would agree to your way of thinking, you say that you can't see the need to have these restricitons.

Like I've said the feedback I've had from cachers in the area who place and find geocaches in the New Forest has all been positive. Doesn't that mean we are doing exactly what we set out to do? Representing the geocachers of the area?

[t.a.folk]

One local cacher already relocates some of his caches after they've been out a while and gives same title with edition II etc and different G.C. number.
If one of his caches goes missing he replaces in a slightly different location with a new edition and G.C. number .
Would both examples still be allowed when 150 reached ?



Anyone know if both examples would still be allowed ?

[Alan White]

Apologies in advance for any offence it is not my intention to offend.I don't take offence at much (just the misspelling of my name :D). I do take your thoughts on board but my views and the present aims and output of GAGB are so far apart that I just don't see my being a member or even on the committee as a means of bringing them together.

[Alan White]

Me I enjoy caching and will abide by whatever rules there are that will allow me to continue to enjoy my Hobby/Game/Passtime.OK, here's a rule: you aren't allowed to place more than twenty caches unless you first archive some. Here's another: you have to archive any cache you own which is more than a year old. Oh, and you can't find more than one cache a day because you might then catch up on your friend Fred and he asked me to place these restrictions on you.

Still think it's a good idea to set arbitrary rules?

Ah, you think I'm not qualified or authorised to make rules like that? You're right. Neither is GAGB.

[Alan White]

except for the minor point that placed without permission it actually technically becomes litter effectively.Oh, indeed. I've always been in the "caching is littering" camp. I recall we had a discussion on that a little while back. Not all cachers agreed, but from a legal standpoint I have no doubt that you're correct. It won't stop me caching, though :D.


This is a merry little argument from yourselfYes, I 'm afraid that the very serious points I'm making about this agreement are being lost or ignored in the euphoria resulting from the fact that we can now place fifty more caches in the New Forest.


you profess to not care about caching in the area To be fair, what I said was: "I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF". Equally, I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be a cache at the bottom of my road. If someone places one there, I'll look for it. But I won't lose any sleep if there isn't one. There are plenty of places without caches.

This isn't the same as not caring. I care about caching which is why I'm presenting (badly, it would seem) the problems with this agreement. If I found myself in the NF then I would be unwilling to look for a cache there because of conditions 11, 12 & 17, to mention just a few (nor should any other cacher without first talking to a good solicitor). So the agreement is preventing caching in NF, which is an interesting paradox.

[The Wombles]

One local cacher already relocates some of his caches after they've been out a while and gives same title with edition II etc and different G.C. number.
If one of his caches goes missing he relaces in a slightly different location with a new edition and G.C. number .
Would both examples still be allowed when 150 reached ?

Assuming everything else is OK (eg 0.1 miles), yes.

[t.a.folk]

Oh, indeed. I've always been in the "caching is littering" camp. I recall we had a discussion on that a little while back. Not all cachers agreed, but from a legal standpoint I have no doubt that you're correct. It won't stop me caching, though :D.

Yes, I 'm afraid that the very serious points I'm making about this agreement are being lost or ignored in the euphoria resulting from the fact that we can now place fifty more caches in the New Forest.

To be fair, what I said was: "I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be caches in the NF". Equally, I have no view as to whether there should or shouldn't be a cache at the bottom of my road. If someone places one there, I'll look for it. But I won't lose any sleep if there isn't one. There are plenty of places without caches.

This isn't the same as not caring. I care about caching which is why I'm presenting (badly, it would seem) the problems with this agreement. If I found myself in the NF then I would be unwilling to look for a cache there because of conditions 11, 12 & 17, to mention just a few (nor should any other cacher without first talking to a good solicitor). So the agreement is preventing caching in NF, which is an interesting paradox.

If you don't wish to comply with number 17 you might not want to visit the N.F. in any guise .

Quote from one of the Verderers webs sites will explain one reason why parking on grass verges is frowned upon .

Under the heading of
"How can I help to reduce animal accidents".


relevant bit concerning parking is
"use official car parks (do not park on verges - this can limit drivers' view of animals); "

Only makes sense when knowing that ponies ,cattle and deer roam free in the forest ,and frequently browse the unfenced grass verges and can unexpectedly step into the road where they have right of way over cars .

Parking across a gateway is also not a good alternative to recognised parking areas .

Cars blocking gates can ,and has , blocked access for emergency vehicals .
There was an ironic case reported of a female walker breaking her ankle while in an Inclosure near Dibden.
She was on a track that was negotiable for an ambulance ,but it couldn't reach her 'til someone had walked to her first to get her car keys , then walked back to move her own car that was blocking the access gate .

[t.a.folk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by t.a.folk https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=27519#post27519)
One local cacher already relocates some of his caches after they've been out a while and gives same title with edition II etc and different G.C. number.
If one of his caches goes missing he relaces in a slightly different location with a new edition and G.C. number .
Would both examples still be allowed when 150 reached ?

Assuming everything else is OK (eg 0.1 miles), yes.
__________________
Dave


:socool:

[DrDick&Vick]

OK, here's a rule: you aren't allowed to place more than twenty caches unless you first archive some. Here's another: you have to archive any cache you own which is more than a year old. Oh, and you can't find more than one cache a day because you might then catch up on your friend Fred and he asked me to place these restrictions on you.

Still think it's a good idea to set arbitrary rules?

Ah, you think I'm not qualified or authorised to make rules like that? You're right. Neither is GAGB.

I thought I would see what reply you would post and I am happy to say that you have not let me down, exactly as expected.

[Alan White]

If you don't wish to comply with number 17 you might not want to visit the N.F. in any guise
I don't know whether I just don't explain myself very well, or I assume that others will see things the same as I do, or people just choose to misinterpret me; but whichever it is clearly I need to explain that.

The problem with 17 is that there are public roads in the New Forest*, roads along which I am permitted to drive my road-legal vehicle. This agreement can't, and shouldn't try to, change that [1].

For completeness, the problem with 11 is that it is not "The responsibility [of Geocache owners/Geocachers] for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe" but rather that of the landowner. I find it very concerning that GAGB has allowed the inclusion in this agreement of a clause which attempts to make GAGB - and even individual cachers - liable for things which are not their responsibility. What does GAGB's solicitor have to say about it?

Likewise, 12 follows on by attempting to make cachers pay compensation. For what and how any damage would be proven to be as a result of caching isn't quite clear, but the fact that the clause is there at all is very worrying.


* At least, I assume this is the case as I actually have no knowledge about the area under discussion because the agreement doesn't define "New Forest". I presume that there's a polygon of coordinates defining this area otherwise no-one could ever know whether their cache is or isn't covered by the agreement. It would be a good idea to publish that polygon, perhaps as an appendix to the agreement.

[1] Edited to add that whatever this condition means it surely applies to all users of the NF and therefore doesn't need to be in a specific agreement about caching.

[dodgydaved]

I don't know whether I just don't explain myself very well, or I assume that others will see things the same as I do, or people just choose to misinterpret me; but whichever it is clearly I need to explain that.

The problem with 17 is that there are public roads in the New Forest*, roads along which I am permitted to drive my road-legal vehicle. This agreement can't, and shouldn't try to, change that.

For completeness, the problem with 11 is that it is not "The responsibility [of Geocache owners/Geocachers] for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe" but rather that of the landowner. I find it very concerning that GAGB has allowed the inclusion in this agreement of a clause which attempts to make GAGB - and even individual cachers - liable for things which are not their responsibility. What does GAGB's solicitor have to say about it?

Likewise, 12 follows on by attempting to make cachers pay compensation. For what and how any damage would be proven to be as a result of caching isn't quite clear, but the fact that the clause is there at all is very worrying.


* At least, I assume this is the case as I actually have no knowledge about the area under discussion because the agreement doesn't define "New Forest". I presume that there's a polygon of coordinates defining this area otherwise no-one could ever know whether their cache is or isn't covered by the agreement. It would be a good idea to publish that polygon, perhaps as an appendix to the agreement.



Surely any of these arguments, in any form, are spurious.

This is merely a permission issue.

Some years ago the New Forest commisioners (NFC) (or whatever title they have) found geocaches on their property - that is to say the land they own or manage.

They removed them.

After a lot of difficult negotiation - carried out by the people that were willing to do it - the NFC agreed that cachers could place caches on their land as long as certain conditions were adhered to. The simplest way to ensure that the conditions they placed on caches on THEIR land was to ask an agent to check all new caches that were placed and if they did not comply with the NFC conditions the cache was deemed to have been placed without permission and this fact reported to the UK reviewer for the area who would check the facts and alert the cache owner to them, temporarily disabling the cache until the permission issues were resolved, or if absolutley necessary archiving them

The land owners/managers have now reassessed their permission conditions.

In order to place a cache with the permission of the land owner/manager (an absolutely, supposedly, cast iron issue for cache placement as far as GSP are concerned) the land owners' conditions have to be observed.

There is no valid argument against this - and I know from experience that you, Alan, are very keen that all GSP guidelines - especially where permission issues are concerned - are followed.

No matter how you feel about the conditions for permission, without them there would be no GSP geocaches on NFC land.

[Happy Humphrey]

As we seem to have entered into a debate, I will side with Alan in general. Even though we wouldn't agree on all points, I'm alarmed at many of the assumptions inferred by the agreement.

As for my earlier post which anticipated a roasting for anyone who dared to comment in a critical fashion, I appreciate that it has remained mostly civil. I also wouldn't presume to leap to Alan's defence, as he probably wouldn't want me to anyway and he appears happy enough to defend his corner whether with support or not.

However, I do get the impression that criticising the rules is regarded as merely moaning. TBH, that's why I didn't join in.

Personally, I would expect such a radical and unusual agreement to be well and truly debated; and all points which cause a raising of eyebrows in any quarter to be fully explained and justified. Alan has kindly put the effort in to read this carefully and highlight several debatable points, thus bringing out explanations and amendments to add value to the discussion. I thank him for for some good probing questions.

[Alan White]

Surely any of these arguments, in any form, are spurious.
You might not say that when NF try to sue you for something they regard as a breach of this agreement.


No matter how you feel about the conditions for permission, without them there would be no GSP geocaches on NFC land.I don't see why that's regarded as a negative. Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away. If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's right that there be no caches there?

[Alan White]

[Alan] appears happy enough to defend his corner whether with support or not.
Oh indeed, but I don't see it as defending my corner but rather trying to highlight things which I see as detrimental to caching in general. Sadly, it seems that most people are so pleased at being able to place fifty more caches in the NF that they're prepared to overlook the draconian conditions that are attached.

I'm sorry to say that I don't see that view changing, until perhaps the NF restrictions are tested by NF making an example of a cacher (the Beds Clangers incident springs to mind) and/or the GAGB restrictions are rolled out elsewhere. Only then might there be some resistance such as mine as the effect would be on a larger group. I'll reserve the "told you so" until then :D.

[dodgydaved]

You might not say that when NF try to sue you for something they regard as a breach of this agreement.

....but they wouldn't, as I wouldn't place a cache in the NF in breach of the agreement as it would negate the conditions of permission.


If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's right that there be no caches there?

Why? If there are cachers prepared to agree with the conditions they have permission to place a cache.

Now, if you had said,

"If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's my right not to place a cache there."

....I would wholeheartedly agree with you.:ohmy:

[Alan White]

....but they wouldn't, as I wouldn't place a cache in the NF in breach of the agreement as it would negate the conditions of permission.
Ah, another example of where either I'm not making myself clear or others are reading the agreement differently.

The agreement does not cover just cache owners: it also covers cache seekers. For example, the agreement specifically, in the para 11 I've so often condemned, makes "Geocache owners/Geocachers" responsible "for ensuring that the area and/or the route(s) are safe". So the NF could try to sue you for what they might see as an infringement of that condition. Whether they'd succeed is a moot point but, as with the Beds Clangers incident, it doesn't really matter how far it gets, it's the fact of it that causes the problem.

In short, and contrary to what many people including yourself are seeing, this is not an agreement about the conditions for placing a cache in NF: it's an agreement about all caching activity in NF. And one which has potentially far-reaching consequences for all caching in GB, which brings us to your next point.


Why? If there are cachers prepared to agree with the conditions they have permission to place a cache.
Because of the precedents. Not because of the NF's conditions but because of GAGB's conditions. The GAGB simply does not have any right to tell every cacher in GB how many caches he can own or how long the cache can live. This needs to be made clear now, when it first arises, to ensure that GAGB don't try the same thing elsewhere.

[nobbynobbs]

To answer one easy question in amongst all of this...

the area in question is clearly shown on any Os map 1:25000 or 1:50000 as the area marked as The New Forest, with a nice colour outline around it all.

[Alan White]

To answer one easy question in amongst all of this...

the area in question is clearly shown on any Os map 1:25000 or 1:50000 as the area marked as The New Forest, with a nice colour outline around it all.
Sorry, not so. The 1:25k I'm looking at has no border, just a large green area with "New Forest" and "New Forest National Park" in random places. The 1:50k has a yellow border with a large "New Forest" in the centre of it and a couple of "New Forest District" elsewhere.

And neither of those is suitable for determining if a cache is or isn't within the area of the agreement, firstly because the accuracy of even a 1:25k map isn't equivalent to the accuracy of a GPS receiver and secondly because, as mongoose39uk said: "not all the land in the area is owned by the Forestry Commission. This agreement is purely for Forestry Commission land."

So I repeat the question: where, in a form and accuracy useful for caching, is there a definition of the area covered by this agreement?

[t.a.folk]

One thing that should perhaps be remembered is that not all the land in the area is owned by the Forestry Commission. This agreement is purely for Forestry Commission land.

As on the map shown on address below .
And it shows car parks and toilets .


www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/map-new-forest.pdf/$FILE/map-new-forest.pdf


or google
"map of forestry commission managed land in new forest"

[DrDick&Vick]

For 25 years I worked with people I described as AAS's (antagonistic attention seekers) and when I retired I thought I would be free from them, how wrong could I have been. This thread will run and run for ever or until one person gets his own way and the agreement is torn up or rewritten in terms that only he approves. Or even easier, if you don't agree with the terms of the agreement that has been agreed between the NF FC and the GAGB then (a) Don't go there to find any caches and (b) don't hide any there. Problem solved as the agreement will not affect you in any way. But then again that may be to easy.
I shall now retire from forum life and just enjoy my caching.

[t.a.folk]

I don't know whether I just don't explain myself very well, or I assume that others will see things the same as I do, or people just choose to misinterpret me; but whichever it is clearly I need to explain that.

The problem with 17 is that there are public roads in the New Forest*, roads along which I am permitted to drive my road-legal vehicle. This agreement can't, and shouldn't try to, change that [1].



It doesn't "try to ,change that" .
The rules about where you can drive in the N.F.are the same for muggles as they are for cachers .
i.e. Public roads and recognised parking areas ,
be they F.C.parking areas ,usually found along the unfenced roads ,
or H.C.C. laybys along the "fenced in " roads. eg. A31 & A35 and the fenced in road from Cadnam to Lyndurst and down to Brockenhurst .

Don't recall if you have ever been to the New Forest ,
but barrier forming ditches & banks ,short posts, gates ,(5bar and single) and "car free area "signs mean you would have to be pretty determined to find yourself accidently driving on unallowed a F.C.land.

[martybartfast]

So I repeat the question: where, in a form and accuracy useful for caching, is there a definition of the area covered by this agreement?


The boundary of the New Forest National Park is defined on various maps, if you really need to know you can look it up. But surely the important bit is that when a cache placer excercises due dilligence and applies to the landowner of their chosen location for permission, and that landowner says "We're the Forestry Comission, and we don't negotiate with individuals for caches in the New Forest, please go to the GAGB with whom we have an agreement" then that cache placer knows they're covered by the agreement. As for cache seekers then they don't need to know whether they're on FC land or not.

[Happy Humphrey]

...As for cache seekers then they don't need to know whether they're on FC land or not.
Strictly speaking, not true. A cache seeker should be aware of the extra liabilities involved on land covered by the agreement, above and beyond the bylaws. For example;


12.Geocache owners/Geocachers will pay compensation or make good to the Deputy Surveyor's satisfaction all damage to Commission property caused by the exercise of this permission. Geocache owners/Geocachers will clear all equipment and litter brought onto Commission land by them, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Surveyor.
13.Geocache owners /Geocachers will ensure proper consideration is given to protect safety of participants and members of the public likely to be within the vicinity of the activity, including the grazing by ponies and cattle belonging to New Forest Commoners.
14.Geocache owners /Geocachers will advise the Commission within 24 hours of the end of an activity of any accident to a participant, spectator, or third party which arises as a result of the exercise of this permission.
...and...


17.Geocache owners /Geocachers will ensure that no vehicles owned or used by them enter Commission land, except for parking in recognised car parks.



...
·compliance with any instructions issued by the Deputy Surveyor or his authorised representative.
·there is to be no disturbance to the general public

As we know, caching is basically the same as going for a walk. After all, you may stop and collect blackberries or leave the path to get a better view when you're just out for a stroll. Except for rare cases, that's pretty similar to seeking a countryside cache.
Unless someone can show otherwise, I don't think that people going for a stroll in the New Forest are subject to the same extra liabilities (beyond the bylaws) as specified above. So the cache seeker needs to be aware that they have additional responsibilities when within the area covered by the agreement.

In practice, I can't see that any of the restrictions quoted above actually apply. For instance, why would the "general public" be "disturbed" by a couple of people walking along a footpath holding a GPSr rather than a mobile phone? Even if it was a group picnicking against a cache, they're
unlikely to be distressed by the sight of a couple of cachers moving a few sticks nearby.
And what "equipment" would need to be cleared to "the satisfaction of the Deputy Surveyor" when you're out on such a cache hunt? How would the DS know that you'd cleared it anyway? But it must be a serious and relevant problem or else it wouldn't be specifically mentioned in the agreement.

[Matrix]

You might not say that when NF try to sue you for something they regard as a breach of this agreement.

I don't see why that's regarded as a negative. Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away. If the conditions for placing a cache in a particular area are too onerous then surely it's right that there be no caches there?

It was at this point I realised the futility of continuing this discussion :wacko:

[Happy Humphrey]

I think Alan's right. It would have been better to start again with new negotiations even if all Groundspeak cache descriptions for the area are disabled. It looks to me as if the FC have misunderstood the whole concept of geocaching and are trying to treat a cache hunt the same as an orienteering event or a mountain bike race.

IMO, caching is no different from going for a walk, and AFAIK these restrictions only apply once you're on an "official geocache hunt" (whatever that might be). Should you declare that you're just on a walk, you're only bound by the normal laws and bylaws.

Although I don't often visit the New Forest, my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach. I urge the GAGB to push for the same rights and responsibilities for cache seekers as for other members of the public, not to treat them as some sort of sports event organisers.

As an aside, it's interesting that Groundspeak seems to be regarded as the official geocaching body here, whereas the other listing sites don't get involved. Perhaps in the case of Navicache, that's because it's a listing site (i.e. not also a geocaching association, unlike GC.com). How could a listing site get involved anyway? It's just somewhere to publicise cache details; the caches are the responsibility of the cache owner.

[t.a.folk]

Although I don't often visit the New Forest, my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach.


like this old permit agreement below for another area .
(surprising what one can find by googling )

No getting away from it.:lol:..liable for damages,
as in notes (1 )and (2) on 2nd page .

Why shouldn't cachers be liable,
Muggles are ,but ut some might not realise that.
At least cachers have been fore warned .

www.lhi.org.uk/docs/Comission_Reports.pdf (http://www.lhi.org.uk/docs/Comission_Reports.pdf)

[martybartfast]

Strictly speaking, not true. A cache seeker should be aware of the extra liabilities involved on land covered by the agreement, above and beyond the bylaws.

But I don't think a cache seeker needs to know about the agreement. As I think Alan has previously said (or at least implied), Mr A. Cacher is not a party to this agreement therefore they cant be bound by it, most cachers won't even be aware that the agreement exists, the cache pages probably don't mention it so how can a regular cacher be expected to abide by it? it certainly wouldn't stand up in court. On the other hand as far as I can see the agreement in relation to cache seekers doesn't stipulate anything other than that which already exists for members of the public using FC land (e.g. only park in carparks, don't cause a nuisance, don't cause damage, etc.) and those regulations & bylaws are usually posted at carparks etc.

Edit to add:



Although I don't often visit the New Forest, my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach.


While I agree that the New Forest agreement is somewhat restrictive surely it's better than what exists with the NW Forestry Comission, where they expect individuals to stump up £25 a time for placing a cache? At least we have some caches in the NF, and I think we've made some progress from no caches ->100 caches ->150 caches, so maybe the GAGB can cover the contentious issues at the next renegotiation.

[Happy Humphrey]

But I don't think a cache seeker needs to know about the agreement. As I think Alan has previously said (or at least implied), Mr A. Cacher is not a party to this agreement therefore they cant be bound by it, most cachers won't even be aware that the agreement exists, the cache pages probably don't mention it so how can a regular cacher be expected to abide by it? it certainly wouldn't stand up in court. On the other hand as far as I can see the agreement in relation to cache seekers doesn't stipulate anything other than that which already exists for members of the public using FC land (e.g. only park in carparks, don't cause a nuisance, don't cause damage, etc.) and those regulations & bylaws are usually posted at carparks etc.



Why shouldn't cachers be liable,
Muggles are ,but ut some might not realise that.
At least cachers have been fore warned .





I mentioned that this agreement gives responsibilities to cachers on top of the normal bylaws. For example, if you go caching in the New Forest and one of the spectators gets injured (don't ask me why there should be spectators; it's in the agreement though), you're liable. I don't imagine that's in the normal bylaws. Nor would muggles be held liable for spectators (unless muggling is a regulated spectator sport) ;).
I expect that if you're caught with a GPSr and breaking one of the rules, ignorance of the agreement will be no defence as far as the FC is concerned.

If you think that these are just the bylaws, then read the rules again more carefully and don't assume that things that don't seem to apply are just there for no reason. Every word will have been thought about and agreed.

[martybartfast]

I mentioned that this agreement gives responsibilities to cachers on top of the normal bylaws. For example, if you go caching in the New Forest and one of the spectators gets injured (don't ask me why there should be spectators; it's in the agreement though), you're liable.
Although IANAL I still maintain that I can't be held accountable to an agreement made between two parties to which I was not a signatory. The only bits of this agreement that would apply to me are those that are already part of the wider bylaws which apply to all members of the public. If I was caching and some spectator was so taken aback by my masculine physique and brilliant caching ability that they fell out of a tree then the FC couldn't hold me accountable as per the agreement because I was not a party to that agreement and am therefore not bound by it, a court would throw it out without a second thought. They might have some chance of going after the GAGB for compo as that's who they have an agreement with, but that's not my problem is it?

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm also not a lawyer, but I think you're quite right there, marty.

So what's the point of all these rules; do they only apply if you're a member of the GAGB? It would rather put me off joining if I lived within reach of somewhere covered by the agreement.

[Icenians]

The Reviewers from other Listing Sites should be following exactly the same actions for any caches listed on their site. The Agreement has specific restrictions as part of the managment of Geocaching within the Area.

May I suggest that i you want this sort of thing to happen, you actually make more of a effort o those sites. A once a year post to say, we are having an election, is simply not enough of an effort. If you want reviewers on TC to know about these agreements then you need to interact with them and let them know that they exist. You cannot simply hope that, for example my US based approvers, just happen by the GAGB database.

[Icenians]

This is my first opportunity to return to this thread - indeed, this forum - since the holiday. I didn't really expect a debate: I simply wanted to state my view. I don't feel attacked at all*: the whole purpose of any forum is for everyone to express their views provided that's done in a civil way.

I commented on the NF "agreement" in its original form some time ago. Indeed that agreement was and is the principal reason why I haven't joined GAGB. I believe that even in its original form the agreement is detrimental to cachers (item 11, among many, being a particularly foolish one for GAGB to agree to).

My point was, and is, that it's not up to GAGB to determine when a cache should be removed or how many caches a cacher is allowed to have. Those are matters for the cache owner in conjunction with their chosen listing sites. I think it laughable that an organisation which purports to look after the interests of cachers demonstrates that by placing arbitrary limits on the activity.

Not unreasonably, I've been asked what I would do to solve the problem. This is easy: there isn't a problem that needs solving. The original agreement specified 100 caches; that limit was reached so no more caches can be placed until one is archived naturally. This is no different from any other area: I can't place a (Groundspeak-listed) cache within 161m of another (Groundspeak-listed) cache. It's first-come, first-gets-the-hiding-place. If I can't place a cache in the first spot I find then I'll look somewhere else. There are millions of places to hide a cache. Why does the NF require a special rule?

That takes care of the 100 "problem": now for the time limit. What that achieves is to provide new caches, close to and possibly even in the same place as the original. What's the point of that? I don't like being taken back to the same hiding place - something which seems to be becoming more and more common - but that's just a personal preference. The real problem with the time limit is that it ensures that more cachers will visit that area because they'll want to get the new cache. This isn't good for the environment. Lastly, who says that the new cache will be better than the previous one? A time limit is just a way of ensuring that what may be a perfectly good cache is removed in order to make way for another. I ask again: why does the NF require a special rule?

I think that there is a tendency in recent times - due partly to the advent of large cache series - for a cacher to place "too many" caches. I'm sure we've all seen cachers with hundreds of caches and Needs Maintenance notes on many of them for long periods. That said, my point is that it's not for the GAGB to mandate the number of caches I may own, and still less for Groundspeak or any other listing site to enforce it unless it's part of the site's own guidelines.

No doubt GAGB can clarify, but I doubt that NF says - or cares - that each cacher can own only ten caches. I suspect the same applies to the time limit and the stage limit. In other words, GAGB, with the participation of an American-owned company, is mandating rules that go far beyond those needed to comply with the wishes of the land manager.

It's been suggested that the limit of 150 is unlikely to be reached so the issues I'm so concerned about won't arise. Firstly, with the growth in cache placement I think we can be very certain that the new limit will be reached very quickly. Secondly, it's not specifically the time limit or limit on ownership in this agreement that concerns me but rather the precedents that they represent.

Which answers the question of why I didn't comment before: the discussion was about what to do with a problem which I don't believe exists in an area that doesn't interest me. So I didn't feel any need to comment. However, once published the new agreement contains things which GAGB and/or Groundspeak may choose to apply in other areas. This agreement sets bad precedents, hence why I choose to comment now.


* Except for the continued misspelling of my name, which I now can only assume is done deliberately in order to wind me up :mad:.

Now Alan, don't be too shocked by this. I agree with you!

There seems to be in this whole thread a counter arguement to Alans points that isn't 150 better than none. This isn't the point. The point is the limits per cacher and time limit. (I see Alans request as to who's restriction that was still hasn't been answered)

OK GAGB . You claim that all listing sites are bound by this. Where in this agreement are virtual caches catered for? Can I place one? Is it allowed to go over the 150 limit? Will the FC remove it? This agreement has been put together without any thought of the other listing sites. Are the New Forest FC even aware of the other sites? Do they realise that you have no control on those sites?

[amberel]

OK GAGB . You claim that all listing sites are bound by this. Where in this agreement are virtual caches catered for? Can I place one? Is it allowed to go over the 150 limit? Will the FC remove it? This agreement has been put together without any thought of the other listing sites. Are the New Forest FC even aware of the other sites? Do they realise that you have no control on those sites?I think what some people lose sight of is that without this agreement, NO physical caches would be allowed in the New Forest. No Groundspeak caches. No TerraCaches. No NaviCaches. The authorities would remove every cache they became aware of. So the agreement is an ENABLING agreement, not a restricting agreement.

While GAGB have no control over the TerraCache and NaviCache sites, the FC do - they can physically remove the caches (and prior to the first GAGB agreement they DID remove all caches). GAGB have enabled TerraCaching and NaviCaching to take place within the New Forest, within the constraints of the agreement. TerraCachers and NaviCachers have reason to be grateful to GAGB for negotiating the agreement - without it, permission for their caches has been explicitly refused.

As the people who have enabled caching to take place, it seems to me that they have every right to manage it as they believe is to the best advantage of the majority of cachers, and I think they've done an excellent job.

There is no limit on virtual caches. It has been stated that the number in the agreement covers physical containers, hence the point about multi-caches having only one physical container.

In a previous email Kev also said "May I suggest that if you want this sort of thing to happen, you actually make more of an effort on those sites." GAGB has made considerably more effort to establish communication than have the other sites - any blame for a lack of communication must lie with the other sites.

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm not sure about Terracaching and others, but I understand Navicache to be merely a listing site. The point being, that the caches belong to the cache placer and it therefore follows that it's up to the cache placer to negotiate permission for his/her cache. The listing site used is irrelevant, which is why Navicache doesn't have to be involved.

[amberel]

I'm not sure about Terracaching and others, but I understand Navicache to be merely a listing site. The point being, that the caches belong to the cache placer and it therefore follows that it's up to the cache placer to negotiate permission for his/her cache. The listing site used is irrelevant, which is why NaviCache doesn't have to be involved.Well, the issue is whether or not a site is willing to list caches for which permission has been explicitly refused. If a NaviCacher placed a cache (anywhere) for which permission had been explicitly refused, and if NaviCache were aware of this, I would hope they would not list it, or remove the listing.

Rgds, Andy

[Happy Humphrey]

Here's my take on it.

In the "old days", GC.com used to be effectively the same as Navicache. All you had to do was assure the reviewer that "adequate permission" had been given. This is carefully worded, as in some cases (quite rightly) "adequate" is "no permission". Generally, only the cache owner can judge this; knowledge of local customs might be necessary. I've always taken this to be no more than a gentle reminder to the cache submitter that permission might be required, along with a mechanism to steer blame away from the listing site.

At a location where explicit permission IS required but it is refused, you could still assure the reviewer that you have adequate permission (it's just a tick in a box). Of course you'd be lying; but it's not GC.com's problem as it's just a listing site and how are they to know what happened behind the scenes? So in general, they are "willing to list caches for which permission has been explicitly refused" as long as they don't know.

With the proliferation of GC.com caches, a change has occurred and Groundspeak has begun asking for proof of permission in certain locations, thus taking on some responsibility for these caches. Navicache hasn't done this, probably can't and wouldn't want to anyway, and remains a site where you can list your cache and be responsible for it yourself.

[Alan White]

After a couple of days away it's good to return to see that others have now joined the debate, on both sides. I'll pick just a few points to comment on...


As on the map shown on address below .
www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/map-new-forest.pdf/$FILE/map-new-forest.pdf (https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/map-new-forest.pdf/$FILE/map-new-forest.pdf)
That's very useful in that it tries to show the FC area in conjunction with the NF. But I maintain that a map of that nature is inadequate for managing an agreement on a hobby which uses technology with near metre-level accuracy.


The rules about where you can drive in the N.F.are the same for muggles as they are for cachers.
Exactly my point. So it, and a lot of the other rules, don't need to be in the agreement.


Don't recall if you have ever been to the New Forest
It's not really relevant to a discussion on this agreement as my concerns are about points of principle and precedence but, yes, I have been to the New Forest. Only once, I think, as I didn't like it and didn't think it to be anything special. I didn't like it partly because of the large signs along the roads telling you what you can do (not much) and can't do (lots). I think the agreement is a product of the same mind that placed those signs, and don't they detract from the prettiness of the area? That said, I didn't think it anything special because it looks no different from any other large pine forest, of which there are hundreds in England. But we digress...


"We're the Forestry Comission, and we don't negotiate with individuals for caches in the New Forest, please go to the GAGB with whom we have an agreement"
Having an agreement with one entity doesn't preclude having an agreement with another. But I think you encapsulate how NF see the agreement: they think they have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caching activity on NF land. They don't: at best they have an agreement for GAGB members to place and seek caches there, though the agreement itself authorises only GAGB committee.



As for cache seekers then they don't need to know whether they're on FC land or not.
They most certainly do, for the reasons I and others have detailed.


I think Alan's right. It would have been better to start again with new negotiations
Actually, if I recall correctly, all the restrictions like 11, 12, 13, 17 etc were in the original version of the agreement. I pointed out at the time that they were overly restrictive and unnecessary, even dangerous for the furtherance of caching as a hobby. My comments were ignored or derided then just as they are now. I'm prepared to be corrected by someone who has copies of both versions but as far as I can see there are only two changes in this version: the increase from 100 to 150; and the GAGB-imposed limits on ownership, lifetime and physicals. My comments in this thread initially referred only to the GAGB-imposed limits but the thread has developed from there.


my concern is that other areas managed by the FC will end up with the same approach. I urge the GAGB to push for the same rights and responsibilities for cache seekers as for other members of the public, not to treat them as some sort of sports event organisers.

Exactly so, though I would delete "managed by the FC" since if GAGB - a body supposedly interested in furthering caching in GB - is prepared to act in ways detrimental to cachers by making us liable for things beyond those the general public are liable for, then it won't be long before GAGB thinks it's reponsible for all caching in GB and is making rules on ownership and lifetime everywhere.


Why shouldn't cachers be liable
We are: but we are no more liable than a member of the general public. In fact, we are the general public.

I think the linked document is interesting in that it shows FC's train of thought and the reason why the caching agreement is phrased the way it is. In fact, much of the wording in the two agreements is identical. You probably won't be surprised to learn that if I were one of the Friends of Brandon Wood I wouldn't have agreed to that document. The very first item: "(1) Members of the public are permitted to enter Forestry Commission land entirely at their own risk, on the condition that they will have no claim whatsoever against the Forestry Commission for any loss"
is enough to explain where FC thinks it's coming from. That clause and the following one are, just like 11 & 12 in the caching agreement, attempts to absolve FC of their own liablity for maintaining in a safe condition the land which they manage and to which they invite the public. I have little doubt that those clauses, if tested, would be found to be unfair and therefore without value. But we don't want to have to test those clauses, do we?


As I think Alan has previously said (or at least implied), Mr A. Cacher is not a party to this agreement therefore they cant be bound by it
While IANAL I believe that to be true. However, it might be possible to show that a cacher should have had knowledge of the agreement. It would be difficult, for example, for anyone contributing to this thread to argue that they didn't know about the agreement. And this is a public forum. It would probably also be reasonable to expect that a GAGB member is aware of the agreement because it was negotiated by GAGB and then published in a place which one would expect GAGB members to visit. It all comes back to testing the agreement, and my stance is that we don't want to put ourselves in that position.


ignorance of the agreement will be no defence as far as the FC is concerned.
Neatly following on, I believe that that's true. The NF believe they have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caching. We know they don't, but NF will assume that anyone caching in NF is doing so under this agreement.


They might have some chance of going after the GAGB for compo as that's who they have an agreement with, but that's not my problem is it?
Yes, it is. I assume that we are all interested in the furtherance of caching as a hobby? If we are all so interested then anything which could hurt caching must be addressed. If GAGB were sued under this agreement then the likely result - aside from the monetary issues as I don't know where the GAGB consititution leaves the committee and members there - is that there would be no GAGB. And, on the once bitten twice shy principle, it's likely that there would then never be a GB caching organisation. Even worse, the fallout from NF's attempt to sue would ensure that caching came into the spotlight in a way that is unlikely to show us favourably but is likely to bring caching into disrepute with - given FC's size - such visibility that we would not like the result.

So it is in everyone's - including seekers' - interest to abide by this agreement unless and until it is changed to be more in favour of cachers. In its present form I can't agree to its terms so whether I think it applies to me or not it's better for caching that I don't cache in NF. This isn't a great personal denial as there are plenty of caches between me and the NF but I would feel the same if I lived in the NF.

So yes, it is your problem.


OK GAGB . You claim that all listing sites are bound by this.
Actually I don't think that they do: a Groundspeak reviewer does but as Groundspeak have no control over other listing sites then that clearly can't be the case. You may have seen that one of my early points was that the entire agreement is peppered with references to Groundspeak but no other listing sites, and the agreement can only be enforced by Groundspeak because GAGB have no power to do it despite being the only party other than FC to the agreement. In other words, GAGB have agreed to an agreement which they have no power to uphold.

[sandvika]

I agree there's still scope to improve the agreement, primarily in terms of layout and clarity. That's a work in progress. Unless you are actually engaged in the specific activity of placing or seeking a physical cache then you are simply a member of the public. I'd say that anywhere other than GZ you are not caching; I'm hoping that any provisions that are not specific to cachers but apply to all can be cited by reference rather than by inclusion in the agreement.

The management plan meets the needs and has approval of local cachers directly affected by the agreement. It recognises that there will be renewed pressure on the land covered by the agreement and seeks to treat it as a renewable resource, which is a pragmatic outcome. It is not a precedent, each agreement is negotiated separately; it is not the only current agreement that imposes limits.

There are other land owners where permission to cache has not been granted because GAGB has not been prepared to accept the land owners requirements or constraints.

[t.a.folk]

That said, I didn't think it anything special because it looks no different from any other large pine forest, of which there are hundreds in England. But we digress...



If we may be permitted to further digress , in some peoples opinion the New Forest is different and special .




The New Forest N.P. has the largest area of "unsown" vegetation in low land England,larest area of depressions on peat substrates & the largest area of mature semi-natural Beech woodland in England.
It has the largest area of lowland heath in Western Europe & most extensive area of active wood pature with old Oak & Beech in North West Europe.
It has about 90 clearly defind mires or bogs,within 20 different valley systems, with more of this habitat in the New Forest than the rest of Britain & Western Europe combined.
The open heath land, mire & pasture woodland of the New Forest are unique at this scale & in this combination.
The variety & quality of the habitats support many rare or resticted species of plants & animals, & for some the New Forest is the main or only stronghold in the U.K.
[Extracts from introduction of a "Topic paper - Biodiversity, Geology & Landscape] .

[Bill D (wwh)]

I don't have the time to copy and paste to reply to everything that I've seen here that may not yet be answered, but I hope the following covers at least a few points.

The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest. If we become aware of NC or TC caches there we'll pass the details on to the FC just as we do with GC caches. It's then up to the FC to decide what if any action they wish to take. Given the non-cooperation of NC and TC it's obvious that they may well decide to remove them.

As has been said again and again, GAGB have often tried to make contact with NC and TC, with no success.

As part of the agreement, GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner, and to make the rules, and they are rules not guidelines, as to how to do that. Yes, of course we've made those rules, ones which we felt were the best way of dealing with the situation. Given the support that we've had in this thread, and from others who don't wish to post here, I think we've done a good job in difficult circumstances.

I agree with t.a.folk that the New Forest is special, and it certainly isn't a large pine forest - most of it does not consist of pine plantations. When it was given its current name the word Forest meant a hunting area. The pine plantations are relatively new, and man-made. It's an extremely diverse area, and in my opinion a very special one. I think it's also worth noting that, slowly, the FC are removing pine plantations and letting the land return to its natural state.

[Happy Humphrey]

As has been said again and again, GAGB have often tried to make contact with NC and TC, with no success.

As far as NC is concerned, I imagine that they'd not be at all interested in this agreement. My impression is that they (or he or she) merely maintains a US-based cache listing site and doesn't have the will (or resources) to get involved with local access issues.

If there are any navicaches in the area, wouldn't it be the cache owners you'd have to contact, not the owner of the listing site?

[Bill D (wwh)]

As far as NC is concerned, I imagine that they'd not be at all interested in this agreement. My impression is that they (or he or she) merely maintains a US-based cache listing site and doesn't have the will (or resources) to get involved with local access issues.

If there are any navicaches in the area, wouldn't it be the cache owners you'd have to contact, not the owner of the listing site?
I'm sure you're right that NC wouldn't be interested - I've formed the same impression as you about their ownership, etc.

If the FC had issues with an NC cache in the Forest, but were prepared to discuss the matter, then yes, initially we would try to negotiate with the cache owner, as I have done with GC caches, but if they were unco-operative then we'd go to NC, but I doubt if that would achieve anything. If that were the case, then unfortunately I think the FC would feel that they would have to remove the cache. That was the scenario I was referring to in my last post, but on re-reading it I realize that I didn't make it very clear.

[sandvika]

As far as NC is concerned, I imagine that they'd not be at all interested in this agreement. My impression is that they (or he or she) merely maintains a US-based cache listing site and doesn't have the will (or resources) to get involved with local access issues.

If there are any navicaches in the area, wouldn't it be the cache owners you'd have to contact, not the owner of the listing site?

I'm endeavouring to build bridges with NC. Perhaps I'll get further than those who have tried before as I'm actually playing the game on NC as well and have been for nearly as long as on GC. I have had a NC refused first time at review so I've proven there is a review :D.

Ideally the cache owners should uphold the permission to cache agreement of their own volition, just as people usually get out of the swimming pool to go to the toilet of their own volition. Non-compliance in either case can reasonably be met with appropriate sanctions.

[Alan White]

The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest.As part of the agreement, GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner
Neither of those is true. GAGB committee is perfectly at liberty, as is anyone else, to make an agreement to place caches in an area and to manage those caches. It might arguably be able to extend the terms of that agreement to include GAGB members.

But GAGB cannot act for other cachers and cannot demand they comply with the terms of an agreement in which those cachers had no involvement and with which they do not agree. GAGB does not set caching law in the New Forest or anywhere else.

[dodgydaved]

GAGB does not set caching law in the New Forest or anywhere else.



....No Alan, but the New Forest authorities, as has been pointed out to you many times, have imposed their conditions on ANY cacher who wishes to place caches on the land they own or manage, before they give their permission for the cache to be placed - as they have- I believe, every right to do.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=27678#post27678)
The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest.As part of the agreement, GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner

<Alan White wrote:>Neither of those is true. I'm sorry, Alan, but as so often, you're talking nonsense.

The FC do have an agreement with GAGB to manage all caches in the Forest. Whether that is possible in practice is another matter, but that does not make my statement untrue.

GAGB has been required to manage caches in the Forest on behalf of the landowner. Again, whether or not we're going to be able to do that is debatable, but that doesn't make that statement untrue either.

You've said of my statements, "Neither of those is true". But in fact both are true

I resent being called a liar.

[DrDick&Vick]

I'm sorry, Alan, but as so often, you're talking nonsense.


Well I had stayed away from this Forum for a week or so in the hope that this subject would have settled, how wrong can you be.
Come on Alan just how long can you keep hammering this subject before you accept that you are not correct and that the agreement is ok.
You and your 'holier than thou' and 'I know best' attitude really does grate after a while.

I shall now stay away from the forum for another few days and see whether anything changes.

Thanks to Bill and the folks at GAGB for obtaining the permission and allowing caching to continue in the New Forest.

[taylertreasurehunters]

Hi, newbie on here and having found around 20 caches wanted to hide one in the New Forest. I've read the relevant guidance on Geocaching.com and here but have come across this thread about the revised limit of 150 caches in the New Forest.

Is there any way of finding out how many there are right now?

Sorry if this post is in the wrong place but it seemed like the most appropriate having looked through the forums.

Thanks

Colin

[nobbynobbs]

by my list, which better be right! 112.

[juliadream]

by my list, which better be right! 112.

I guess the numbers have increased since then - what are the numbers now?

btw The revised draft for the New Forest National Park Management Plan is available online from 22 October, and will be a riveting Good Read as the nights grow longer, tho' comments required by 12 November. The Recreation Management Strategy for the New Forest National Park will be submitted early in 2010. I view Geocaching to be Recreation and consider GAGB should be a stakeholder organisation involved in the consultation process.

[nobbynobbs]

Currently 118 after several caches archived and several new ones.

I'll look at the national park document when it's available, at this point in time I don't think they are aware of us as we have the agreement with the Forestry Commission. Not sure I want them to either unless they have seriously calmed down in their ideas of how the park should be handled.