Conflicts of Interest [Archive]

Chris n Maria

23rd July 2003, 06:16 PM

:rolleyes: Yeah what Hornet said :rolleyes:

As long as we know who people are where is the conflict of interest? If people vote for moderators to be on't comittee that's OK if that is what they want.

If both mods are voted on then there may be some conflict, with getting approval, If the cache doesn't meet GAGB guidelines but is OK as far as GC.com then perhaps another non GAGB mod might be needed. But this presupposes the GAGB guidelines are vastly different from GC.COM as that is not the case at the moment lets not worry about it till it becomes an issue. The issue could easily be resolved by asking a non UK moderator to look at any caches that may fall in to this problem.

I can't see any senario at the moment where a conflict of interest could happen by being involved with GC:UK. Can anyone enlighten me? :unsure:

If we carry on along this route the only people we will be able to elect are people who have never ever done anything for the caching community :(

Chris

Richard and Beth

23rd July 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jul 23 2003, 05:16 PM
I can't see any senario at the moment where a conflict of interest could happen by being involved with GC:UK. Can anyone enlighten me? :unsure:

The main issues I would see that could be a problem for some people is the same as if all the UK admins are on the committee. GC:UK has a relationship with Groundspeak by virtue of being a UK reseller of Geocaching merchandise, and also by making use of Groundspeak data to provide their files. Whilst this may be seen as an advantage, at the same time an accusation that was levelled at the founders of GAGB when we said we wanted it to be for all UK geocachers, was that because we were closely associated with GC.com we couldn't be fair. Having said that, the self same relationship will be seen as an advantage when looking at it from a different angle.

If we carry on along this route the only people we will be able to elect are people who have never ever done anything for the caching community :(

Indeed, there are only a limited number of people who would be willing to put themselves forward, and they are more than likely to be people who have volunteered or done things for geocaching in the past.

I just felt that since the conflicts of interest were highlighted so vociferously in the past, that we should explore them again before we get to the point of electing a committee. I would hate for the new committee to come into existence, and then have to deal with a flame war being accused of conflicts of interest as we did before.

Regards,

Richard

TheCat

23rd July 2003, 09:16 PM

Just one point about conflict of intrest. In the running of GC:UK I have no way of deciding what caches are or are not aproved in the UK. I feel that this might of been the reason for some of the unplesentness in the past. I have no problem with anyone standing for election. We should just leave it to the members to decide. Just my opinion.

el10t

23rd July 2003, 10:50 PM

If there are any GAGB members who consider (rightly or wrongly) that there is a conflict of interest with an individual person getting elected then we have a problem - bad feelings set in and we won't all be pulling in the same direction with this association. It is already plainly clear that members feel quite strongly about this.

The moderators/cache approvers of GC.COM and those directly involved with the development of G:UK should consider carefully whether getting themselves elected onto the GAGB comittee is a good thing for the association as a whole before agreeing to stand. I can see GAGB members leaving in both instances, and we need a solid membership to take things forward.

Besides which, I would question whether either the GC approvers or the G:UK developers have the necessary time to make a good job of steering the association in its infancy days. I'm sure something would end up not getting the attention it requires.

Moss Trooper

24th July 2003, 12:49 AM

Just to put my point over.. and those that know me will know I do not say much in public.

I Am a founder member of GAGB.. It, no matter what anyone says or does.. will be a necessesity to caching in the future.. If you don't belive me.. look at the situation in US, Cache licences!!! .. or the do as we say or don't do in NZ, just two examples.

To try and preempt this situation GAGB was formed.. and for those who thought it was months in the machinery.. wrong.

I and the other founder members took a slating .. for what.. trying to make the hobby more accesible and easier to the masses.

I came back as admin for one reason and one only.. to maintain the inroads made in the approving of caches perculiar to UK.

I have been nominated for committee, I will not accept.. I do not actually approve caches on a great scale.. DD does that.. I do moderate the GC.com forum though.

Just take it from me.. GAGB is needed.. it has a totally different area of concern than GC:UK.

And I would hope that those who have signed up are here to promote cacheing in the uk as a sport/hobby and not to earn browny point for one side or another..

Nuff said.

Paul G0TLG

24th July 2003, 12:52 PM

As I've said before, I have quite a bit of experience of being on committees of various orgs (this is not a hint...I don't wish to be nominated ;) )...

My experience leads me to believe that the fewer rules we have about who can be on committee, the better.

In one club I belong to, one of the hardest working club members cannot be on committee, because of a rule stopping husbands and wives from serving together. Meanwhile, another member who does little for the organisation gets elected year after year, because no-one stands against him.

Let 'em all stand...come one, come all. If we don't want 'em, we won't elect 'em.
If we elect 'em, we deserve 'em!

Paul

TheCat

24th July 2003, 02:03 PM

I can not agree more with you Paul. Moss Troopper re consider and stand for election.

Teasel

24th July 2003, 02:50 PM

Besides which, I would question whether either the GC approvers or the G:UK developers have the necessary time to make a good job of steering the association in its infancy days.
Everyone must juggle their available time between different persuits, be they running a Scout troop, helping in the parish church, looking after a child, running a website or a million other possibilities. Indeed, personally I'd be reluctant to give my vote to someone who's not active in something else!

It's up to everyone standing for any post on any committee to decide for themselves whether they can commit sufficient time to that post to do the best job they can. It's also up to them to convince the electorate that they have their priorities straight and can fulfil the requirements of that post. To single out four people (*) with visible roles in geocaching and suggest they have less time available to commit than anyone else... well, I can't see the basis of your assumptions.

(*) there's a rule against being pedantic, so no complaints about the logical impossibility of singling out four people! :P

el10t

24th July 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Teasel@Jul 24 2003, 01:50 PM
To single out four people (*) with visible roles in geocaching and suggest they have less time available to commit than anyone else... well, I can't see the basis of your assumptions.

I didn't suggest they had less time available. I actually said I would question whether they had the time available. Having the neccessary time is something anyone standing for election would have to convince me of before I voted for them.

I certainly couldn't fit the work into my schedule regardless of how much I want to be involved, which is why I'm not standing.

In essence, I think I am agreeing with you. Sorry if my initial post expressed it wrongly.

Muggle

30th July 2003, 07:20 PM

So after a couple of months of relative calm, up pops Moss Trooper to throw his cap back in the ring for committee membership. We are again in the position of having both the G:Com UK cache approvers standing for places on the committee of GAGB.

This was one of the main things that caused disquiet and acrimony at the outset of GBGB. If we finish up with a situation where GAGB is chaired by Tim & June (no doubt in anyone's mind that they are right for the job and will be elected unopposed) and both UK cache approvers on the five person committee then we have a position where decisions made by the GAGB committee will pretty much automatically become policy for what can and can't be done by geocachers who wish to have their caches posted on the G.Com website.

We already have a unilateral ban on glass containers OF ANY KIND, despite an overwhelming vote against such a blanket ban in the G.Com forum.

After conciliatory moves in the right direction, GAGB seems now to be teetering towards what many had feared.

Being on the committee of GAGB and being a UK G.Com cache approver is clearly a huge conflict of interest and should not be allowed under any future constitution to be agreed.

I would like to nominate Icenians for committee. Only by having them on the committee can we be sure that the interests of those ordinary geocachers who just want to be left alone to find and hide caches are looked after.

Omally

30th July 2003, 07:56 PM

Muggle, I think you should stand for election yourself. You clearly are able to "talk the talk" of what one would expect from a committee type person. You also seem to know an awful lot about the ins and out of Geocaching.

We do need diversity on this committee, but I'm not 100% sure about your suggestion of a conflict of interest statement re: GC.com approvers being on the committee. Both nominees seem to have a good handle on the needs of cachers and also (and this is the really important bit) seem, to myself at least, to be willing to take the "sport" forwards.

I may have a unique voice on that one, I'm not always right!

So anyway, Muggle, are you game? Of course, I would like to know more about you before I cast a vote in your direction, but I'm open to discussion.

Moss Trooper

30th July 2003, 09:30 PM

Now how do I answer the charges???

Firstly.. I have been a cacher since march 2001 and UK admin of and on for 2 years. As one of the two who instigated GAGB I don't think I would be doing anything to harm it. I do not see any conflict of interests, on the contrary, if a decision is made by the committee with reference to GC.com.. would it not be better that a member of the GC.com UK Admin put forward the points raised to GC.com.

Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guiedlines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches. I have informed all other approvers via the approvers forum that this is the case and if they get involved in approving UK caches to apply these guide lines.

Now to the point of popping up.. I t seems that you are the one who has popped up! You joined on 20th June, you have made one post.. that above.

Omally said "You also seem to know an awful lot about the ins and out of Geocaching" which is fasinating as you don't even have a profile on GC.com or Navicache. Well a one under that name .. So can I please ask as I have explained my position you explain yours?

I'm sure the rest of the members would love to hear it? :)

Icenians

30th July 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jul 30 2003, 08:30 PM
Firstly.. I have been a cacher since march 2001 and UK admin of and on for 2 years. As one of the two who instigated GAGB I don't think I would be doing anything to harm it. I do not see any conflict of interests, on the contrary, if a decision is made by the committee with reference to GC.com.. would it not be better that a member of the GC.com UK Admin put forward the points raised to GC.com.

Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guiedlines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches. I have informed all other approvers via the approvers forum that this is the case and if they get involved in approving UK caches to apply these guide lines.

I see that a new members opion is worth less than a old hand.

The guidelines of the HCC are guidelines for the HCC. Why should this now override the guidelines of GC.com just because you say so. I think that is exactly the point Muggle was making.

As to you not harming the GAGB, I think Muggle was more concerned at you harming the game for GC.Com players that don't want to be organised by the GAGB.

Caches on the GC.com site should be approved by the guidelines for GC.com NOT HCC. :angry:

Omally

30th July 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Muggle@Jul 30 2003, 06:20 PM

I would like to nominate Icenians for committee.
I forgot to mention (please forgive the lapse and hence the additional post):

This is frankly laughable.
To nominate someone who has archived all their caches from GC.com, as well as all logs of other cachers on those caches (which is the act of someone simply too childish to be considered for a position on a committee) is surely a waste of time?
I don't wish to make deliberately contentious posts, but this must be considered by all voters when deciding who should represent them.
Remember, Geocaching is a big thing, bigger than any one of us. The committee will be representing a small section of us cachers to the world at large (or at least our tiny part of it).
We need serious representation.

Icenians

30th July 2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Omally+Jul 30 2003, 08:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Omally @ Jul 30 2003, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Muggle@Jul 30 2003, 06:20 PM

I would like to nominate Icenians for committee.
I forgot to mention (please forgive the lapse and hence the additional post):

This is frankly laughable.
To nominate someone who has archived all their caches from GC.com, as well as all logs of other cachers on those caches (which is the act of someone simply too childish to be considered for a position on a committee) is surely a waste of time?
I don't wish to make deliberately contentious posts, but this must be considered by all voters when deciding who should represent them.
Remember, Geocaching is a big thing, bigger than any one of us. The committee will be representing a small section of us cachers to the world at large (or at least our tiny part of it).
We need serious representation. [/b][/quote]
Now this is my biggest issue with the way GAGB is going. GC.Com is not the only geocaching site. My caches are still in place, apart from one that was trashed, and are logged on navicache.

GAGB is not interested in promoting geocaching in the UK but geocaching.com.

When you suggest serious representation you really mean representation that agrees with you.

Tim and June

30th July 2003, 10:42 PM

Icenians

The GAGB is a democracy, if the members feel that Moss Trooper should not be a committee member, then he will not be voted in.

Many others can see that getting HCC to agree sensible guidelines was a major achievement, especially when they are so close to those guidelines already in use in the UK. The only additions have been minor, like not putting your cache in a poly bag, and parking responsibly. If the GAGB manage to get other major land owners to agree to those guidelines rather than imposing their own, stricter rules, we will have achieved the holy grail of geocaching. The important thing is, we need to be able to approach land owners and say "We have some guidelines already, which will protect your land".

Now the members can read both sides of the story.

Quite why you joined the GAGB, I'm not sure, you caused so much trouble with your anti-GAGB posts on the geocaching.com forums that the entire UK admin for Geocaching.com resigned. We do not want a repetition of that trouble here. Please do not make inflammatory posts again.

Icenians

30th July 2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 30 2003, 09:42 PM
Icenians

The GAGB is a democracy, if the members feel that Moss Trooper should not be a committee member, then he will not be voted in.

Many others can see that getting HCC to agree sensible guidelines was a major achievement, especially when they are so close to those guidelines already in use in the UK. The only additions have been minor, like not putting your cache in a poly bag, and parking responsibly. If the GAGB manage to get other major land owners to agree to those guidelines rather than imposing their own, stricter rules, we will have achieved the holy grail of geocaching. The important thing is, we need to be able to approach land owners and say "We have some guidelines already, which will protect your land".

Now the members can read both sides of the story.

Quite why you joined the GAGB, I'm not sure, you caused so much trouble with your anti-GAGB posts on the geocaching.com forums that the entire UK admin for Geocaching.com resigned. We do not want a repetition of that trouble here. Please do not make inflammatory posts again.
Now hold on a minute.

I do not have a problem with guidelines nor that you have agreed them with HCC. I simply question that guidelines agreed with one landowner/manager being unilatrally adopted by the GC.com admin. This demonstrates a conflict of interest and I was only responding to someone else's post.

If you want to have a go at someone over inflamatory posts, talk to O'Mally! No other person nominated for the committee has been attacked in such a way. :(

I will try and make this very clear. I have not complained at ANYONE standing for any position.

The Hornet

30th July 2003, 11:01 PM

At the risk of possibly offending some people (that's really NOT my intention) I would like to say that I consider a couple of interesting points have been raised in previous postings.

I know Icenians have some forthright views and have expressed them quite clearly in the past, much to the chagrin of some, they do raise what I consider an important point. GAGB was set up to represent the best interests of ALL UK geocachers. This must include those who prefer to use Navicache.COM and Geocachingworldwide.COM as well as the more popular Geocaching.COM. So to condemn someone who chooses not to use GC.COM is wrong in my book. Should I get elected to the committee I will try to represent users of the other sites as well as GC.COM

As for Moss T & Eckington applying the HCC guidelines to all UK caches, that worries me as well. While much of what is set out on the Hampshire County Council site makes eminent sense I am concerned that we are being governed by a more restrictive set of rules than the rest of the geocaching world. I really don't remember us (GC.COM geocachers) being asked if that's what we wanted.

With both approvers as potential committee members there could be questions asked as to whom we appeal should there be a dispute over the legitimacy of a cache. I personally would tend to favour a split of responsibilities.

It has been suggested (in the previous thread about nominations) that committee candidates should submit a "manifesto" for the electorate to help them in their voting. Well I guess this outlines my thoughts. I suggest you bear this in mind when it comes to the voting.

I truly hope no one has taken offence at my views but I feel honesty and openess are essential in the voting process for GAGB even if we don't get it from "professional politicians" ;)

.................................................. .was that my chances just flying out of the window?????? :D :D :D

Omally

30th July 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 30 2003, 09:57 PM
If you want to have a go at someone over inflamatory posts, talk to O'Mally! No other person nominated for the committee has been attacked in such a way. :(

As I said, I was not trying to be deliberately contentious. I merely wished to highlight one very good reason for not voting for you. What happens if you get upset with Navicache? Will you do the same there? Now I'm sure that is raking over old coals but it's still a valid point to be considered by anyone trying to decide who should represent them.

Being democratic, we would need to see pros and cons for all nominees. There have been plenty of pros all round and a few cons.

Icenians, Stand for election by all means.

I apologise if you feel I was being personal, and having re-read my post, perhaps I could have worded it a bit better. One reason to not vote for me would indeed be lack of diplomacy! :)

The Wombles

31st July 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 30 2003, 09:57 PM
I simply question that guidelines agreed with one landowner/manager being unilatrally adopted by the GC.com admin. This demonstrates a conflict of interest ....

I have to question this logic.

GAGB are suggesting guidelines and not mandatory GC.com requirements. GAGB will have no control over GC.com Approvers, whether on the committee or not, so there is no conflict.

Actually, I see an argument for the opposite case. Their involvement on the committee would be as part of a democratic organisation which would ensure their contact with the wishes of the majority through the polls being used here rather than those who speak loudest on forums.

I have no doubts about the personal integrity of Moss Trooper and (through limited contact) have no reason to doubt Eckington. I believe we should leave their committee involvement to a democratic decision.

Dave

Moss Trooper

31st July 2003, 01:26 AM

OK.. OK..

I've had enough..

I have tried to do best for cacheing in UK.. and what do I get .. **** on..

Iceians.. yer a blind fool

I will leave .. I will never take part in geocaching again.. I have had enough..

Moss Trooper

31st July 2003, 01:48 AM

I would also add that I have contacted GC.com Admin, resigned and advised them, that as DD is on holiday they need an approver for UK..

Icenians

31st July 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jul 31 2003, 12:26 AM
Iceians.. yer a blind fool

I'm niether blind nor a fool.

I have never said you don't do a good job for geocaching. I don't understand how guidelines of the GAGB being used by GC.Com admin to approve caches of non gagb members is not a conflict. Non members that do not get to vote will then have GAGB guidelines forced on them. That is not democratic.

I don't doubt anyones motives in any of this. But, my experience is that give it a couple of years, and different people on the committee there will be problems.

I am just raising something that is a cause for concern for some members for which I am being attacked. If I cannot raise these points on thread titled 'Conflicts of interest' calmly without being called all sorts I really don't see the point in having these forums. A committee is supposed to represent its members and that involves listening to them.

I have not had a 'go' at anyone in this, yet have been attacked for posting a reply to someone else having a go at a member.

Kev (Icenians)

Icenians

31st July 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by The Wombles@Jul 30 2003, 11:10 PM
GAGB are suggesting guidelines and not mandatory GC.com requirements. GAGB will have no control over GC.com Approvers, whether on the committee or not, so there is no conflict.

I quote from Moss Troopers earlier post. This has already happened. Cache approvals on GC.Com for the UK are being done as per GAGB guidelines and not GC.com.

Moss Trooper
Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guiedlines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches. I have informed all other approvers via the approvers forum that this is the case and if they get involved in approving UK caches to apply these guide lines.

Now while the GAGB guidelines are so close to the GC.com guidelines that makes little difference. What happens when another landowner wants something else in the guidelines and the GAGB ones start to differ from the GC.Com ones?

As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with guidelines just that people elected by the membership should not be impossing their guidelines on people who do not wish to be members. This is clearly a conflict.

el10t

31st July 2003, 10:32 AM

Unbelievable! Can I ask what exactly were your motives for joining GAGB Icenians? You have been very anti-GAGB from the start, and are now winding people up to the extent that they are leaving.

Icenians

31st July 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by el10t@Jul 31 2003, 09:32 AM
Unbelievable! Can I ask what exactly were your motives for joining GAGB Icenians? You have been very anti-GAGB from the start, and are now winding people up to the extent that they are leaving.
I'm sorry but I am not going to take the wrap for this. If people choose to quit everytime someone questions them then they shouldn't be in the job.

I have not had a go at Moss Trooper I mearly quoted what he said. This was started by others and not me.

My reasons for joining the GAGB is to fight for the right to let people who do not want to be controlled in this hobby to be allowed to do so.

I make no apology for Moss Trooper leaving that was his choice!

If members of a committee do not like to be questioned or critised then they should not be on a committee. It goes with the job.

el10t

31st July 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 31 2003, 09:50 AM
I'm sorry but I am not going to take the wrap for this.
I'm sorry but the fact remains that Moss has left following your posts.

I am left wondering whether it is a coincidence that the bad feeling over on the GC.com forum died down after you stopped posting there but is suddenly apparent here within days of you joining.

Tim and June

31st July 2003, 11:20 AM

Now while the GAGB guidelines are so close to the GC.com guidelines that makes little difference. What happens when another landowner wants something else in the guidelines and the GAGB ones start to differ from the GC.Com ones?
Obviously, if a land owner wanted something which was too restrictive, the committe would have to add this as an additional guideline. For example, if a land owner called "Megga Land Owning Commission" said "No caching on a Sunday" we would have to add this to the guidelines as "The Megga Land Owning Commission has said we cannot cache on their land on a Sunday".

As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with guidelines just that people elected by the membership should not be impossing their guidelines on people who do not wish to be members. This is clearly a conflict.
So I guess then, that having one person decide that he will not accept something (as per this thread (http://ubbx.groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=6616058331&m=70860586) is better than having a committee of elected persons decide. Ok then !

The guidelines which have been adopted by HCC are almost word for word as those which were being proposed by Forest Enterprise/Forrestry Commission when they saw this thread (http://ubbx.groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=6616058331&m=7346084&p=1) where a very few cachers indicated that they were going to ignore the guidelines about putting alcohol and food in cachers. The result of Forest Enterprise reading that thread (throwing the proposal out) was reported in this thread (http://ubbx.groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=6616058331&m=94960141&p=1)

The upshot of this is that if we cannot approach major land owners and say "we have a set of guidelines in place which work and will protect the land and heritage that you are responsible for", we will get absolutely nowhere.

We need sensible guidelines to be adopted which work and can be seen to be working, otherwise land owners will create their own guidelines or (because it is less work) simply say, "No, we don't want geocaches on our land". We need them to listen to us.

Teasel

31st July 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 10:20 AM
So I guess then, that having one person decide that he will not accept something (as per this thread (http://ubbx.groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=6616058331&m=70860586) is better than having a committee of elected persons decide. Ok then !

Hey, if MCL doesn't want to eat Marmite, then it seems a little unfair for the elected committee to try to force him to! :o

Tim and June

31st July 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Teasel+Jul 31 2003, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Jul 31 2003, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 10:20 AM
So I guess then, that having one person decide that he will not accept something (as per this thread (http://ubbx.groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=6616058331&m=70860586) is better than having a committee of elected persons decide. Ok then !

Hey, if MCL doesn't want to eat Marmite, then it seems a little unfair for the elected committee to try to force him to! :o [/b][/quote]
I take it that your post was intended to be a joke !

Icenians

31st July 2003, 01:49 PM

Why does this keep becoming an issue about guidelines? Guidelines is the example. The issue is that elected GAGB members should not be able to impose their decisions onto the cachers that choose not to be members of the GAGB.

The HCC has negociated guidelines, sensible ones in my view, with GAGB. If they wanted to negociate with GC.Com then that is what should have been done.

Please read this in the way it is intended. I am not deliberatly trying to wind people up or to start an arguement. As the line says at the top of the forum, 'Please do not be offended by the posts of others who might not agree with you 100%, they have a right to be heard also'

I am fed up with being blasted simply for posting something others have concerns about. :( I am obviously coming across in a very different way than I intend. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Is that enough smilies to disarm?
I would have put more but the message board won't allow it!

Kev (Icenians)

Chris n Maria

31st July 2003, 01:54 PM

Dear oh Dear oh Dear,
:( :(

It's only a game

People please remember what we are actually talking about. The actual things that have been impossed are things like no caches in plastic bags and no caches in animal holes (most of the other guidelines about searching arn't inforcable just recommended).

So you don't like the way things were done (conflicts of interest, points of principle etc.)? or you can't see a problem? or like me just stuck in the middle wondering if any of this is worth getting het up about.

Now while the GAGB guidelines are so close to the GC.com guidelines that makes little difference. What happens when another landowner wants something else in the guidelines and the GAGB ones start to differ from the GC.Com ones?

....makes little difference - is where we are at now as far as I can see - so does it really matter then?
What happens when ...... - can't we worry about that if and when it happens?

<Sense of Perspective>
Please remember folks - It's just a hunt for a lunchbox , everyone here is a cacher and (as far as I can see) trying to improve the game.
Cache placement is not a moral issue.
</Sense of Perspective>

Just trying to get folks to see the tupperware for the trees.
Chris

Masher

31st July 2003, 02:25 PM

Yeah, what Chris said.

Can anyone remember the old days?
We used to roam the countryside in search of Tupperware!
Ahhh... such happy times :)

Teasel

31st July 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 31 2003, 12:49 PM
The HCC has negociated guidelines, sensible ones in my view, with GAGB. If they wanted to negociate with GC.Com then that is what should have been done.

The problem there is that Jeremy, Elias et al would not, and I believe should not, start some sort of transatlantic negotiations with British landowners for the right to place caches on their soil! The UK cache approvers could, I suppose, negotiate on Groundspeak's behalf, but they are unelected and may not have the desire, or the time, to speak to landowners.

There's also the worry that a GC.com admin, on resigning from their post, would break off contact with the council (or other landowner) that they were dealing with, leaving the council in an awkward position. An independent organisation, such as GAGB, would be far better placed to quickly pick up where things left off.

Finally, and back on-topic, while I see no great conflict of interest in a GC.com cache approver also negotiating with landowners on behalf of GAGB, I think that having negotiators who are an official representative of Groundspeak, rather than of GAGB is a step in the wrong direction. As a supporter of Navicache, I'm surprised you're suggesting it! So long as Navicache users can join GAGB and place caches under its guidelines, and so long as caches which conform to the GC.com/navicache/etc guidelines continue to be passed on the respective listing sites, even if they contravene the GAGB guidelines, then what's the problem?

Icenians

31st July 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Teasel+Jul 31 2003, 01:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Jul 31 2003, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Icenians@Jul 31 2003, 12:49 PM
The HCC has negociated guidelines, sensible ones in my view, with GAGB. If they wanted to negociate with GC.Com then that is what should have been done.

The problem there is that Jeremy, Elias et al would not, and I believe should not, start some sort of transatlantic negotiations with British landowners for the right to place caches on their soil! The UK cache approvers could, I suppose, negotiate on Groundspeak's behalf, but they are unelected and may not have the desire, or the time, to speak to landowners.

There's also the worry that a GC.com admin, on resigning from their post, would break off contact with the council (or other landowner) that they were dealing with, leaving the council in an awkward position. An independent organisation, such as GAGB, would be far better placed to quickly pick up where things left off.

Finally, and back on-topic, while I see no great conflict of interest in a GC.com cache approver also negotiating with landowners on behalf of GAGB, I think that having negotiators who are an official representative of Groundspeak, rather than of GAGB is a step in the wrong direction. As a supporter of Navicache, I'm surprised you're suggesting it! So long as Navicache users can join GAGB and place caches under its guidelines, and so long as caches which conform to the GC.com/navicache/etc guidelines continue to be passed on the respective listing sites, even if they contravene the GAGB guidelines, then what's the problem? [/b][/quote]
I think I lost the thread of that.

I'm going to suggest we agree to disagree on this. I had no intention of this getting to these proportions. Going around in circles as before will not help anyone. Just one thing though. To geocachers who choose not to be a member of GAGB, the committee are unelected on GC.Com as well.

Muggle.
Sorry, but I cannot accept your nomination as I have no idea of your motives for putting me forward. Thanks anyway.

Kev

BugznElm'r

31st July 2003, 03:09 PM

The problem as I see it is one of rules and guidelines. When users sign up on Geocaching.com they are presented with a few rules ad regulations that they agree to. When they want to submit a cache the user is again presented with guidelines to follow for a successful submission.

No mention is made of regional variations to approving policy. No mention is further made of any other guidelines being utilized. Now, while we don't mind following the HCC guidelines for cache placement, others who didn't realize this might.

I think that in the long run there are only a few solutions to this:

- Change the wording on the GC site to reflect the fact that regional variations to these rules apply - having these rules listed would be handy.

- The GAGB itself become a cache approving/listing body, separate to GC, with its own rules and guidelines that members sign up to right from the start.

The guidelines that cachers have to follow have to be guidelines that they agree to follow when they choose to use a particular site. No website or association can remove all outlaws ... all they can do is just make sure that their members know the rules and agree to abide by them. Public web forums are a poor place for this. Set it into the membership guidelines form the start.

We really do hope that things recover from this rocky patch shortly.

Elm'r

Team BugznElm'r

John Stead

31st July 2003, 05:36 PM

:rolleyes:
The things that happen when I leave my computor for a few hours - now Moss throws in the towel, worst news since Tim and June did. Do please reconsider Moss - your good sense and good humour are needed here. Not least you are one of the few survivors from before I got into this game!
I too have taken exception to some postings by others but if people have to be like that, well that is life, they may be spoiling it for others and seem to enjoy it.
:( :(

Pharisee

31st July 2003, 07:02 PM

I have absolutely no probem at all with the HCC laying down rules for the placement of caches in Hampshire. The rule as I understand them are sensible.

What I do have a problem with is approvers, appointed by geocaching.com, taking it upon themselves to apply these rules to ALL UK geocaches submitted for approval, irrespective of their location. This, to my mind, clearly exceeds their authority. They should be approving caches according to geocaching.com rules and no others. Until such a time that the HCC rules are incorporated into the geocaching.com rules, they are at best, a local variation and should under no circumstances be applied nationwide.

TheCat

31st July 2003, 07:24 PM

I am sure that someone will flame me for this but what Pharisee has just said makes great sense.

Tim and June

31st July 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Pharisee@Jul 31 2003, 06:02 PM
they are at best, a local variation and should under no circumstances be applied nationwide.
Might I ask if there is anything amongst those guidelines which you feel is not worthy of, or should not be be implemented nationally ?

As a by the way, Jeremy Irish has said that he was going to include regional variations on the GC.com site. The reason for that is that every state un the US has it's own variations, as does the rest of the World.

The UK is in itself, unique because we are the only country in the World with historically established "Right's of Way". Scotland is different again in that there is no law of tresspass.

Yes, we need our own regional guidelines.

Finally, a quote from Jeremy himself

We'll try to address regional requirements, laws, regulations, etc. in the new release of the site. It may not be one of the first items to add to the site.

sonya :-)

31st July 2003, 08:16 PM

Turn your back for 5 minutes and look what happens...

I agree with Pharisee too.

But do you know what - I don't feel very strongly about it. At least not so that it matters, I'm fairly laid back about the whole thing really. I think it is because these are all little niggly things that one way or another, (whether that moderator is on this committee, or a G.com approver is a member of this group) probably won't make a great deal of difference to the way things work in the real world of tupperware searching. (I purely mean membership of this that and the other etc. not the actual guidlines themselves. I really think these are a step forward) - I've got better things to argue over. (Well, nothing to argue over really, although I am a bit aggrieved about my height.)

But just because at the moment the difference in guidelines is negligible does not mean that things shouldn't be done properly as a matter of principle (al?). And by that I don't mean high horses and morals. I do feel a bit strange about the UK G.com admins approving caches according to HCC guidlines. Not because I disagree with the guidelines or think they are detrimental, just because G.com hasn't put the seal of approval on the guidlenes. (I think) Is it well known to G.com users that the guidelines aren't the ones they think they are?

What would happen if there was a G.com approver who wasn't a GAGB member? To which guidelines would the cache be approved? And would it make any difference anyway at the moment?

Believe me, I am not trying to be awkward, and like I said, I am happy whatever.

It's like someone offers you a green lolly and a blue lolly, telling you they taste the same anyway. You take the blue lolly coz you like blue better, give it a few licks and it's green underneath. Not what you expected, but they both taste the same and maybe you should be thankful you got a lolly in the first place!

I just thought I would air my opinion. And I feel better for it. :)

I think these things seem like palavers because of the media we are required to use. I bet even the members with the most extreme views could quite easily have a nice conversation over a cup of tea and come to an agreement, or at least agree to disagree.

I hate long posts.
I like lollies.

sonya :-)

31st July 2003, 09:04 PM

That'll teach me. I just burned my pizza whilst considering the relative merits of lollies, blue and green.

It's a sign.

Omally

31st July 2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by sonya :-)@Jul 31 2003, 08:04 PM
That'll teach me. I just burned my pizza whilst considering the relative merits of lollies, blue and green.

It's a sign.
Yeah, you forgot red lollies and yellow lollies. :D

Pharisee

31st July 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 06:26 PM
Might I ask if there is anything amongst those guidelines which you feel is not worthy of, or should not be be implemented nationally ?

Hi T& J
No... to the best of my knowledge, the guidelines drawn up by the HCC are sensible and worthy. Whether they should be implemented nationally... who knows. What suits one county council may not be acceptable to another. Thats why I support your (among others) efforts in creating the GAGB. I will cheer and praise you every time you manage to get an agreement with another CC.
Until that time, the guidelines should remain in Hampshire.

As I've said in other postings, I dont have a problem with the HCC guidelines. It's just the fact that they are being used 'instead of' and not 'as well as' the geocaching.com guidelines by the UK approvers.

Tim and June

31st July 2003, 09:46 PM

Is there nobody else out there who can see that we need to establish accepted guidelines for the UK so that land owners other than HCC will listen and therefore consider giving us blanket permission. HCC would not have even passed the time of day with us had we not gone to our first meeting with guidelines already in hand.

This was not done in the USA and now each part of the States has different rules and they all have to be adhered to rigidy. In the parks of some state's you have to pay a licence which lasts 4 months, then the cache has to be lifted or another licence purchased. In others you have to apply in writing and wait for it to be okay'd before you can place your cache. The list of different restrictions is frightening.

The first website I looked at to use as an example is here (http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/webpage?webpage_id=mga). Look about halfway down the page at "Missouri Land Use Update"

If the UK is to avoid that sort of problem we must be proactive, we must demonstrate to land owners that we are responsible and will follow our own guidelines.

We had a number of meetings with Forest Enterprise who control the Forrestry Commission. We were at the final stages with our contact delivering his final proposal at head office when they saw posts on the GC.com forum indicating that cachers were ging to ignore the GC.com guidelines and would continue to place food and alcohol in caches. THe brass threw out the proposal and said that they were not going to listen to cachers. We lost the opportunity to get blanket permission on FC & FE land over the whole of the UK.

Now, we have two options. Bury our heads in the sand and just hope that land owners look favouraby upon us, or we can act positively and promote ourselves as the good guys. Show the land owners that we mean business.

The GAGB was started as a means to get approval and recognition. If nobody wants the GAGB, we might as well call it a day and save our energy.

Icenians

31st July 2003, 10:04 PM

T&J
Nobody is saying the guidelines are a bad thing. Quite the opposite. But you cannot impose the rules from the GAGB on none members.

If I wish to place a cache on HCC land and log it on Navicache I would respect the HCC wishes and keep within their rules. That doesn't mean I should use their rules to place a cache on my own land but, I should make sure the cache follows the rules of the site I am logging it on.

To enforce the rules of an association on none members is simply wrong.

I am trying to write this in a way that doesn't cause anyone to get wound up and I hope people will read it as calmly as I am typing it. If you get a different vibe from the one intended then I apologise in advance. It is not my wish to wind anyone up or recieve anymore abuse for simply holding an opinion. :)

Kev

Omally

31st July 2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 08:46 PM
<snip>

Now, we have two options. Bury our heads in the sand and just hope that land owners look favouraby upon us, or we can act positively and promote ourselves as the good guys. Show the land owners that we mean business.

The GAGB was started as a means to get approval and recognition. If nobody wants the GAGB, we might as well call it a day and save our energy.
I would venture a suggestion here: we need to agree to disagree on certain things, vote on others and then try to settle down.

Let's make this a nice place to be. I'm not trying to be a purveyor of rose-tinted specs here, of course it's impossible for us all to agree on everything. The world would be pretty boring if that were the case, and progress would never be made.
What I'm referring to is a spot of self-moderation. Perhaps an unwritten rule of thinking twice before posting once could be implemented? I know I could do with following that sometimes: I'll readily put my hands up and admit to rashness. Hindsight gives you 20/20 vision in most cases.

I reckon we can manage ourselves like sensible grown-ups if we put our minds to it. If we can manage that much, then I'm sure we can resist the licensing thing among other threats.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Pardon the melodrama, but a saying becomes a cliche when it has an element of truth to it.

Let's settle down now, eh? Please?

Pharisee

31st July 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 08:46 PM
Now, we have two options. Bury our heads in the sand and just hope that land owners look favouraby upon us, or we can act positively and promote ourselves as the good guys. Show the land owners that we mean business.

The GAGB was started as a means to get approval and recognition. If nobody wants the GAGB, we might as well call it a day and save our energy.
No... sorry... we only have one option. Burying your head in the sand can seriously damage your health ;)

I agree with you entirely that we have to deal with the landowners and show them the positive side of geocaching. You've made an excellent start with the HCC but the guidelines were drawn up by Hampshire, for Hampshire, not for the whole of the UK. It may be that these guidelines WILL be acceptable to all the big land owners that's why we need you (GAGB)... to talk to them and find out. Until then, we're still playing to GC.com rules.

Tim and June

31st July 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Pharisee@Jul 31 2003, 09:20 PM
I agree with you entirely that we have to deal with the landowners and show them the positive side of geocaching. You've made an excellent start with the HCC but the guidelines were drawn up by Hampshire, for Hampshire, not for the whole of the UK. It may be that these guidelines WILL be acceptable to all the big land owners that's why we need you (GAGB)... to talk to them and find out. Until then, we're still playing to GC.com rules.
As I said above, guidelines almost identical to those adopted by HCC were within our grasp with the countries latgest land manager, Forest Enterprise, who also control The Forrestry Commission. That is how we were able to be so prepared for HCC.

How can we possibly say to a land manager, "Please Sir, if you let us play on your land, we might follow these guidelines." ?

We have to say to them "This is the way we do it" !

I don't really believe that you want cache approvals in the UK to adhere to the GC.com guidelines. Your cache will be archived if you even mention a pub on your cache page, etc. etc. Those were bad days indeed !

Each area in the USA has different guidelines. Here are some more guidelines from some of the various associations across the USA. Don't take my word for it, check them out.

Georgia Geocachers Association (http://www.ggaonline.org/gadodont.html)

The Maryland Geocaching Society (http://www.mdgps.net/modules.php?name=Kinder)

Michigan Geocaching Organisation (http://www.mi-geocaching.org/modules.php?name=land_guidelines&file=showdetails&showlisting=annarbornap)

Wisconsin Geocaching Association (http://www.wi-geocaching.com/hide.html)

Great Plains Geocaching (http://www.gpgeocaching.com/asp/News/news.asp?m=1&i=46)

Central OregonGeocaching (http://www.cogeo.org/guidelines.html)

And a couple from the government :

Geocaching prohibited in the Minnesota State Parks (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/state_parks/index.html)

Pensylvania Department of Conservation (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/geocaching.htm)

Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department (http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/parks/trails/GeocacheSiteRegistration.doc)

If we don't take a proactive stance soon the UK is likely to suffer the same way.

Mr & Mrs Hedgehog

31st July 2003, 11:35 PM

I (Mr H.) have been following this thread with interest. Can I just add something. I think we need the GAGB. We need something local. I used to be a member of an American organisation. We wanted to expand outside the USA. We recognised that authorities in the UK would deal better with someone local, than with an US organisation. So I was appointed as UK Liasion Officer for this group. I did wor hard for it but with little success. One of the reasons I didn't get far was that even though I was UK based, I was still representing a US organisation. To really progress in this country we need a UK organisation. That is what I see the role of the GAGB. I would like to see the GAGB have more recoginition form the top body. Unfortunatly we have a confuction with the different GC.com, Navicom and all the other geocaching bodies around. Should GAGB be affiliated with only one of them or try to cover them all is not for me to debate.

Whilst I agree that HCC 'guidelines' are for HCC and not the UK. I work for a different council so know that things set by one council are meaningless 'over the border' in another authority. However they do form a great platform for us to build on. If we can show that the HCC guidelines work, and we can stick to them and that HCC are happy with they way we conduct ourselves, then this will help talk with other land owners so very much. It will show us as being a responsible group. Who want to enjoy our hobby but respect the land that we are using for or hobby.

The Hornet

31st July 2003, 11:40 PM

Whoa!!! The title of this thread is "Conflicts of Interest". It was set up to discuss the position of GC.COM moderators, GCUK webmeisters and other sundry people in relation to the impending elections to the GAGB committee.

What we are getting is the same discussion about how GAGB should implement local rules/guidelines, calll them what you will. Now this discussion has been aired before and, yes, I have held some forthright views myself. But I believe now is not the best time to have this discussion. As I said an election is looming. Various people have been nominated to the committee to run GAGB for the next year or so. These people will thrash out a policy which, I hope, will be discussed by the membership. I don't know who this committee will be nor do I know what views will be held. I certainly don't know the outcome of their deliberations.

Can I suggest that we all take a step back and for the next couple of weeks keep the discussion on the topic in hand - i.e. electing a committee?

I would venture a guess that little is being done "behind the scenes" at the moment. How can it be when there is no committee?

Fainling agreement to delay discussion, could I respectfully suggest a "Guidelines" thread be set up to continue the discussion and leave this thread to the purpose it was set up.

I'm off to bed now, goodnight!

John Stead

1st August 2003, 12:12 AM

Pardon me when The Hornet has tried to bring us back on topic - but in this discussion frequent reference is made to HCC rules as though they applied to all caches in Hampshire. Surely they are only applicable to land in the ownership of the County Council, i.e. their country parks, and therefore they are fully in their right to call them rules. If we accept them as guidelines elsewhere that is another matter.

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 10:13 PM
How can we possibly say to a land manager, "Please Sir, if you let us play on your land, we might follow these guidelines." ?

We have to say to them "This is the way we do it" !
Problem is, who is we? GC.com. GAGB members? ...

And how many of us ... 95%? 99%? 100%?

I really do believe that is a web forum had been involved that the Cuban Missile crisis would have ended in mushrooms, the Berlin wall would still be up and we'd still be powdering our kids with DDT.

You will never get 100% support behind anything (especially on the web ...) - No one association can expect 100% support and loyalty to the rules and guidelines from non-members. It would be pushing it to expect that from the members :P

I do believe in what the GAGB is fighting for but I but I'm not sure if it can work through GC.com (perhaps alongside it) and fear that the only true way you can get a handle on the "we" is by approving and listing caches on GAGB. Currently the "we" is too disparate and the links between GC.com. approvers, moderators and GAGB too complex for folks to understand - resulting in all the problems we are seeing. I'm afraid that GC.com UK approvers following rules that the GAGB came up with for the HCC just seems too sinister for most. GAGB membership should mean a signing up to sensible rules - otherwise find another listing site.

The final problem I see is the fuzzy links between GC.com and GAGB. Long established members of the GC community have jumped on GAGB, encountered the inevitable sniper fire that this draws then publically decided that they want nothing more to do with GC (in one way or another)..I think this is almost (if not more) damaging to geocaching than one person out of 20, 50 or whatever saying "stuff your rules". Sorry this sounds confrontational and I mean it in a constructive way but I do feel that GAGBrelated issues have damaged UK geocaching over at GC.com greatly. :(

Elm'r

Team Paradise

1st August 2003, 01:31 AM

This whole situation seems to me to be one of communication...

Let me try to explain my thinking...

1. There seems to be fairly unanimous approval from everyone for the guidelines as drawn up by HCC / GAGB as being sensible... I haven't yet seen anyone say they're bad in any way.

2. Now, T&J pointed out above that in order to convince other landowners to adopt a similar stance to that of HCC regarding permission, we need to able to say "This is how we do things" rathar that saying "we might do it like this" ... Sound sensible to me.

3. As T&J also point out above, the UK already has it's own special provisions for GC.COM approval of caches.... In other words, there GC.COM approval guidelines are not universal already.

OK, here's the problem as I see it...

Nobody except the approvers appear to know what these special provisions are.

Given 1. and 2. above, it would seem sensible to adopt this for the UK in general but there is no mechanism on GC.COM to inform cachers of the current "special geographic" guidelines or of any changes to these guidelines.

If 1. above is given as true, then as long as Moss got approval/agreement from GC.COM that this was to become part of the UK specific cache approval guidelines, he's done nothing wrong except not having a method to communicate this, which isn't his fault.

Equally if 1. above is true and everyone really is happy with these guidelines, is there really a problem in adopting these for the UK in general, especially if GC.COM has agreed them as part of it's UK specific provisions for cache approval ?

These GC.COM "UK specific" guidelines (such as allowing pub names, etc) must have come from somewhere and be ammendable somehow, but it would appear this the procedure isn't available to everyone, which seems to be part of the problem and where the conflict of interest seems to stem from...

Note that in both of the above paragraphs, I have no idea whether or not GC.COM has sanctioned these guidelines... this is purely hyperthetical.

Did that make any sense at all, or have I just been babbling... ? :)

Steve

MCL

1st August 2003, 04:23 AM

The topic is Conflict of Interest, and I will come to that, but first I need to digress in order to do so.

A while back there was a big row about the Food Standards Agency. It was set up to be a part of the ministry of ag, fish and food, and people made the very valid point that the same people should not be on both sides of the fence (farmers vs consumers). This was a percieved confict of interest, even though the people concerned may have been very honourable and decent chaps.

I believe we have a similar (though not identical) situation here. When a person signs up to use a cache site like GC.COM they have to accept that there are two places that rules and guidelines might be imposed on them. One is obviously the landowner of the particular land being cached on, and the other is GC.COM. Every person signing up to GC.COM is accepting the authority of these two entities. If its navicache they sign up to, then the two entities are the landowners and Navicache. And so on.

So a cacher placing a cache on HCC land has no choice but to follow the guidelines agreed by HCC. They also have to follow the guidelines laid down by GC.COm (or navicache or whoever) because that is the site they signed up with.

So far I have no problem with any of this. However, the next step is teh dangerous one: To then have a cache that follows GC guidelines but may fall foul of one of the HCC ones, rejected for approval by a GC approver, when the cache is not on HCC land, and the landowner whos land it *is* on has made no such guideline restrictions, is plain wrong.

Now, I don't actually know whether this scenario has arisen yet, but whether it has or has not is immaterial. The fact is it *could* and this would mean that HCC guidelines are being imposed on a person who has no knowledge of them. And that is not fair, and not right. A person who just signs up to GC and takes no part in GAGB or any web forums, will wonder what the hell is going on when they get their cache rejected due to rules they can't see on the GC.COM site. This, I believe, is one of the points being made by Icenians.

The only two sources of guideline authority a cacher submits to is GC and the particular landowner. And GAGB are not part of that sequence. Where GAGB comes in is to provide judiciuos and gentle armtwisting of major landowners to keep them from banning us from their land. It is useful to have HCC guidelines in hand to show these other landowners, but until they accept them on their land, through GAGB negotiations or otherwise, then there is no reason to have then imposed on them by a GC cache approver without warning.
This, I think, is related to one of the points being made by Pharisee.

And this is where the confilct of interest comes in. I think it is encumbant upon GAGB to negotiate guidelines with landowners, who have the power to enforce them, but if GAGB want GC.COM to adopt guidelines for the UK, they should do that by negotiation as a body with GC.COM and indeed there may be an argument for them doing just that. The GC might well say to it's approvers, "we have agreed that the UK caches be approved to such-and-such standards, and will be saying so on our site to all our members. You may now enforce these guidelines when approving caches" That would be an eminently sensible way to go about things. The lowly cacher would see that GC HQ had sanctioned things and they either submit to their authority or go caching on another site. (Icenians did something similar to this, and I have no problem with that)

Unfortunately, what I think we have at the moment is (and I may be wrong) is two of the planet's cache approvers on GC have decided to approve using guidelines not available to a GC.com cacher, and without telling them. Now it may well be that so far, no harm has been done, no cache has been rejected due to an HCC clause which is not a GC clause and where teh cache is not on HCC land. But just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't. In fact, it almost certainly *will* eventually which is why the situation must be resolved. There are two ways to do this.

- GC.COM publishes the fact to all its members that it is adopting the HCC guidelines for the UK cache approvers to enforce. The HCC guidelines then become, in effect, GC guidelines. Thats OK in that case.

- The GC cache approvers stick to GC guidelines available for GC members to see.

Either one or the other. Now I know the argument has been put that the UK approvers have already got a hidden list of variations they are allowed to run with, after winning the approval of their masters in the US. ...>>

>>> Continued in next post (There are system limits on size of posts)

MCL

1st August 2003, 04:26 AM

<<< From previous post

... What is the difference? The difference is that most of the UK variations have been relaxations of existing GC guidelines (pubs, for example) whereas most of the reasons for rejecting a cache due to HCC guidelines will be to do with a restriction over the top of the GC guidelines. People don't mind relaxations, they do mind restrictions, and this I think is one of the issues at stake here.

So now back to the topic...Conflict of interest. After saying the above, I can now put it in one sentence: If the GAGB are going to be negotiating/lobbying/begging/suggesting guidelines with GC.COM in the future (and I think they probably will be at some point) then there is no way that the GAGB can have GC.com personnel (for want of a better word) on it's committee. It is the Food Standards scenario all over again. We can't, for the same reasons, have the major landowners on teh committee either. People would never believe that everyone was wearing the right hats, even if they in fact were. We have to be seen to be clean, as well as actually *being* clean.

Now this is not to say that the cache approvers from GC.Com can't be members of GAGB, of course they can, but they shouldn't be on the governing body. Conversley, comittee members of GAGB should on no account take up positions at GC.Com, for exactly teh same reasons. The general membership can overlap, but I don't believe the "officials" should. It just looks dodgy. Don't go near it with a barge pole. People will never believe you can maintain integrity.

One consequence of having GC officials on GAGB committee, might be a cry from "officials" (again, for want of a better word) of, say, Navicache, that while GC has representation at the top, Navicache (or whoever) doesn't. They might well claim this to be an unfair situation. And they might be right. It is a road which I think we should stop ourselves going down right here, right now. As I said in another post, we don't know who might be appointed to such posts in the future. We should be making fireproof basic policy to protect us from people we may never even have met yet.

Anyone got any unburned pizza....?

Icenians

1st August 2003, 09:06 AM

Now why is it when I try and say that I get called all sorts? :(

MCL, My point exactly. Thank you.

Kev

Pharisee

1st August 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 1 2003, 08:06 AM
Now why is it when I try and say that I get called all sorts? :(

MCL, My point exactly. Thank you.

Kev
I think it might be something to do with the fact that MCL uses 100 words when 10 will do :D

Only joking, mate.... ;)

Tim and June

1st August 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Jul 31 2003, 11:41 PM
but I do feel that GAGBrelated issues have damaged UK geocaching over at GC.com greatly. :(

Elm'r
This is not the case.

Jeremy has been criticised on numerous occasions for controlling geocaching the World over.

To his credit, he has said that he would like all regions to be represented by committees/associations so that the cachers in each region control caching in their own area. This was one of the reasons the GAGB was founded.

If I might quote Jeremy for the second time
We'll try to address regional requirements, laws, regulations, etc. in the new release of the site. It may not be one of the first items to add to the site.

No damage has been done to UK caching at GC.com

By the way, in my post above where I listed some of the regional sites with their own guidelines I omitted to mention, those are the guidelines applied by approvers when approving caches in those areas. Regional guidelines are expected and accepted by GC.com. This is how the approvers help each other out when someone is on holiday etc. Many of the new cachers maybe don't realise that June and I were GC.com approvers, that is how we know all this.

Many cachers have said they want to see the UK specific guidelines listed somewhere. As I said, this is in the GC.com rewrite when it is finished.

Team Paradise seem to have a firm grasp on the logic behind all this. Thanks for putting it so eloquently.

Geoff & Bonnie

1st August 2003, 11:02 AM

What MCL said makes eminent sense. (I think!)
Geoff

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 11:14 AM

Do you not feel that your good selves stepping away from approving/moderating, then Richard and Beth, now Moss Trooper has had any negative effect on UK geocaching. Don't get me wrong, I support the GAGB guidelines as they stand but I think any land owner/newcommers to the game taking a look at the GC.com UK forum cannot help but see conflict, arguments and disputes. Many of these have little to do with GC.com but revolve around GAGB. I cannot see how this has had no negative effect whatsoever.

Gavotteers

1st August 2003, 11:33 AM

As a newbie could someone please explain all the animossity between GCGB and GC.com

as i see it GCGB is set up to represent the interest of GB Cachers and GC.com the entire world

If forming GCGB has caused so many problems can i ask the question does GCGB have to be part of GC.Com

Why couldn't GCGB be a completely seperate group which would be Just involved in Great britain ???
or is that too simple

This forum is great beats watching the idiot's lantern anytime keep it up

:blink:

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 1 2003, 09:45 AM
Jeremy has been criticised on numerous occasions for controlling geocaching the World over.

To his credit, he has said that he would like all regions to be represented by committees/associations so that the cachers in each region control caching in their own area. This was one of the reasons the GAGB was founded.

OK, that's great if GC.com were the only listing site on the web. And I'm sure Jeremy does feel that way but even he himself admits that even wording changes to the site are not a high priority.

The only geocachers that will see the need to follow these guidelines are those who are members to something they believe in. Bringing out guidelines and expecting all to follow them if folly. Not everyone follows the Highway code - designed to save lives.

The only geocachers that GAGB can issue guidelines for and represent when talking to land owners are their own members ... not GC.com users. The size of the GAGB membership should be the driving force with land owners, pointing out how these members abide bu the rules and yes, there will always be a few deviant outlaws (not ideal wording but I think it suffices). Then GAGB members agree to remove matches/food stuffs from caches or whatever.

If land owners are being told "all geocachers" as opposed to "our members" it will not work. This is where the link between GC.com and GAGB becomes fuzzy.

Also, what happens when/if we don't have a GAGB member as approver (or someone who decides they don't like a rule) ... again, the guidelines mean little. Same with a non-local approver (we're back to that right now until Eckington is back from holiday after Moss T's departure).

I'm sorry but I do think that in the last few months UK geocaching has turned into a bit of a shambles as viewed from a GC.com perspective.

Pharisee

1st August 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 1 2003, 09:45 AM
This is not the case.

Jeremy has been criticised on numerous occasions for controlling geocaching the World over.

To his credit, he has said that he would like all regions to be represented by committees/associations so that the cachers in each region control caching in their own area. This was one of the reasons the GAGB was founded.

We all know that hindsight is 20/20 and if, as someone's tag line says 'if only like had an undo button', we wouldn't have all these problems.

The British mentality, mind set, call it what you will, will always resist any attempt to impose restictions on our liberty / freedom of choice / etc no matter how well meaning the imposers intentions or how sensible the restrictions.
I don't think I've seen a single posting where the cacher states that the HCC guidelines are anything but good, common, caching sense so why have we had all this argument?
I'll tell you... It's because the guidelines were apparently being imposed on us without consultation. If Moss had started a forum topic along the lines of:
'We, the UK Approvers, would like to use the HCC guidelines nationwide. Would UK geocachers find that acceptable?' then I'm sure, after a day or two's discussion, he would have had a majority approval and all would be sweetness and light.

Like I said... hindsight is 20/20.... A bummer but it's never too late to learn :)

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 12:12 PM

Having re-read this thread :blink: I think that the main objection that most have to guidelines is clear ... The current HCC guidelines (hereby referred to as the guidelines) were drawn up by what is to most a "Geocaching Magic Circle". Now great. These guidelines were - to my mind - sensible. Now, it appears that they apply to HCC land. Great. But this spawns three issues ...

1 - what if *someone* negociates with a CC and has dumb rules - or just different. Matches may be allowed, holes may be dug, virtuals only ... what stops there becomming guidelines too.

2 - The moderators now approve to these HCC guidelines many wonder why.

3 - There are guildelines now being used that appear nowhere (glass containers). Whether we agree or not with this, this can be a problem in the future.

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 1 2003, 11:09 AM

I'll tell you... It's because the guidelines were apparently being imposed on us without consultation.
Bingo. And the GAGB also needs to be able to sustain criticism as well as praise without members quitting geocaching at the drop of a hat.

Chris n Maria

1st August 2003, 01:04 PM

Did I mention its just a game? :D

Trying desperately to remain neutral in this as things seem to be getting heated over not very much.

People seem to be saying that the issue is not :
Whether the GAGB should exist/negotiate with landowners/talk to GC.Com.
Whether the guidelines are acceptable (everyone seems to think they are OK).
Whether the present GAGB committee have done a good job.

The Issue does appear to be:
Should the guidelines have been imposed without discussion by the community?

Reality Check remember Jeremy@groundspeak can add whatever rules he likes - the site is not a democracy. You can get upset about the imposition of rules but really you don't have much say in them. Luckily he has allowed local rules – Good thing.

GAGB was setup by the mods (at the time) to add some sort of democracy to the development of local rules and legitimacy to the negotiations with landowners.

I think the issue comes down to should Moss have imposed guidelines across the whole of the UK without informing us or asking for opinions first? All I can think is that as there is little material change Moss (Eckington, T&J et al) didn’t see a problem with that. Others have got upset about the principle of rule imposition without discussion (but should note the reality check above).

At the end of the day all this is pointing to the need for a formal separation between the cache approvers and those who formulate guidelines with GAGB. Mainly to protect the approvers from flame wars like this. This goes against my nominations somewhat but I nominated Moss because he has done loads for caching and I thought he would be good in the role. I can see now that wearing both hats puts people in a very difficult position even when they are trying to act in the best interests of the sport.

If we had ever been able to debate the imposition of guidelines there is one thing I would have liked to have asked:
The guidelines say I cannot place a cache inside a dry stonewall – does this apply if am a farmer and it is my wall, on my land?

At the end of the day the argument is about how things were done – not what was done.

Chris.

P.S.. Notice I haven’t talked about Navicache at anytime during the above….that is a different topic.

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 1 2003, 12:04 PM
Reality Check remember Jeremy@groundspeak can add whatever rules he likes - the site is not a democracy.
Yes, Jeremy does have rules. They are on his site.

I'm happy with Jeremy (et al) = GC.com

But how does this work out as

GC.com = GAGB?

GAGB = Navicache??? :blink:

GAGB can only ever realistically expect to represent GAGB members. I think that it is the tie in between the GAGB and GC.com that makes folks uncomfortable. If one day Jeremy wants to make a rule that enforces the HCC guidelines, fine, but until he does, there shold be respect given to the rules of the sport as the site sees it, otherwisae it is normal that we will see accusations of unclear rules and moderators playing to two masters.

Teasel

1st August 2003, 01:40 PM

Nobody has suggested that the HCC guidelines are not a good model which should be presented to other landowners for discussion. Nobody has suggested that GC.com should not approve Hampshire caches according to the HCC rules. The only issue is HCC rules being applied in, for example, Lanarkshire.

I appreciate T&J's point that people who are negotiating with landowners need to be able to show that cachers are responsible people who have, and who obey rules. But what's so bad with saying to a landowner:

"The basic rules currently being applied to caches on your land cover most things, but we recognise that you may have extra guidelines of your own. For example, whilst sensibly banning food and drink per se, the GC.com rules do allow bottled water to be left in caches. When we developed the guidelines currently being applied in Hampshire, the HCC requested that no drink of any kind should be left in caches".

If this is a bad approach, somebody tell me quickly, as that's the one I'm intending to use myself! :unsure:

Teasel

1st August 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 1 2003, 11:09 AM
I don't think I've seen a single posting where the cacher states that the HCC guidelines are anything but good
Well, a few of us have questionned the discouragement of night caching, but that's about as serious as the criticism has been.

Personally, I'd like to see night caching encouraged! As someone who is called upon to search through the night for missing walkers and (usually but sadly not always) find them before they die of hypothermia, I feel that anything which gives people experience of night navigation in a relatively safe and controlled environment is a Good Thing.

I do appreciate the HCC's concern that encouraging night caching might actually add to the statistics! However, in my experience, such incidents are often caused by people "biting off more than they can chew". Night caching seems, to me at least, a good introduction to the extra demands, and responsibilities, of walking through the countryside after dark.

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Teasel@Aug 1 2003, 12:40 PM
"The basic rules currently being applied to caches on your land cover most things, but we recognise that you may have extra guidelines of your own. For example, whilst sensibly banning food and drink per se, the GC.com rules do allow bottled water to be left in caches. When we developed the guidelines currently being applied in Hampshire, the HCC requested that no drink of any kind should be left in caches".
Add to that the fact that the enviromental impact from geocaching is tiny when compared to what already goes on on land open to the public already ... litter, fly-tipping, dog mess, disposable BBQs placed on the ground and picnic tables. Instead of emphasising GC rules, concentrate on the positive sides too, such as CITO, appreciation of the outdoors and so on.

Case in point ... I know the coords to several fly tips and burnt out cars on council or forestry enterprise land. I've provoded them with these and some - several years on - are still there. The impact geocachers have on land open to the public is minimal at worst, positive at best. This, I think, are the areas we should promote. Certain areas might want to have additional rules put in place and that's great.

Additionally, will the HCC guidelines be applied retrospectivly to all caches on all HCC property?

Chris n Maria

1st August 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 1 2003, 12:32 PM
If one day Jeremy wants to make a rule that enforces the HCC guidelines, fine, but until he does, there shold be respect given to the rules of the sport as the site sees it, otherwisae it is normal that we will see accusations of unclear rules and moderators playing to two masters.
I'm obviously being really dim here. How can GAGB negotiate any agrements without a way to inforce them for that specific area?
Without an understanding that GAGB negotiations will have some enforcment by GC.Com the negotiators are simply "walking naked in to the conference chamber".

Moss Trooper

1st August 2003, 02:06 PM

Last post..

Just to keep it in perspective HCC v GC.com guidelines..

You can't stash a cache in HCC on a SAM or down a hole but you can plant a cache near any likely terrorist target or military base, bridge, dam etc..

As for the rest of the country you can't plant a cache near a likley terrorist target, millitary base etc but you can plant them in bunny holes, drystone walls and on SAM's. etc.

Just to name a few

Not that it bothers me now..

I'm well out of it

Teasel

1st August 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 1 2003, 01:06 PM
You can't stash a cache in HCC on a SAM
Sorry this is off-topic (please reply off-line if you wish), but does anyone have a complete list of SAMs in the UK? Counties and districts often provide lists on their websites, but often not in a particularly useful format. I'm currently trying to contact someone in English Heritage for a complete list of all monuments with statutory protection but if someone already has access to such a list, that'd save some time. Also, bear in mind that EH are currently having a bit of a blitz and hope to add several thousand more SAMs over the next few years, so we'll need to be sure we keep ourselves up to date.

Sorry for the intermission, I now return you to the COI debate... :ph34r: :unsure:

BugznElm'r

1st August 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 1 2003, 01:06 PM
Last post..

Just to keep it in perspective HCC v GC.com guidelines..

You can't stash a cache in HCC on a SAM or down a hole but you can plant a cache near any likely terrorist target or military base, bridge, dam etc..

As for the rest of the country you can't plant a cache near a likley terrorist target, millitary base etc but you can plant them in bunny holes, drystone walls and on SAM's. etc.

Just to name a few

Not that it bothers me now..

I'm well out of it
As long as it's not in a glass container :)

Seriously though, that's the kind of clear statement that we've needed here for a while now.

Sorry to see you go Moss Trooper. I had great respect for your wisdom and desicions. I'm sorry to see you go :(

washboy

1st August 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 1 2003, 08:06 AM
Now why is it when I try and say that I get called all sorts? :(

MCL, My point exactly. Thank you.

Kev
I don't know, Icenians. So far you've not said anything to wind me up. I agree with the points you raised, both now and several weeks ago (I just wish you'd not removed your caches to Navicache :( )

MCL has, as usual, detailed in a most eloquent manner, the very points I would have made (had I the time and skill to do so).

There is a need for total transparency in all commitee-type dealings (hence my comment, in another thread, about using the Admin user account by several people and for a variety of purposes).

GAGB should be independent of both landowners and geocache listing sites. Just as I would wish them to negotiate with landowners, I would wish them to be able to negotiate with GC.com, et al - but not from the inside.

Mr & Mrs Hedgehog

1st August 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Aug 1 2003, 01:06 PM
Last post..

Just to keep it in perspective HCC v GC.com guidelines..

You can't stash a cache in HCC on a SAM or down a hole but you can plant a cache near any likely terrorist target or military base, bridge, dam etc..

As for the rest of the country you can't plant a cache near a likley terrorist target, millitary base etc but you can plant them in bunny holes, drystone walls and on SAM's. etc.

Just to name a few

Not that it bothers me now..

I'm well out of it
Surely the two sets of guidelines are not mutually exclusive. If you place a cache on land belonging to HCC then surely you have to obey the HCC guidelines and the GC.com rules (or which ever listing site you use). If you plant a cache on non-HCC lands then just the GC.com rules apply (at the moment)

Mr H.

paul.blitz

1st August 2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Jul 31 2003, 11:41 PM
Problem is, who is we? GC.com. GAGB members? ...

I seem to be on the GAGB forum, which I guess means I'm amongst GAGB members. I have to be a GAGB member to post here.

So where is the problem in understanding "we"?

paul.blitz

1st August 2003, 10:21 PM

So, I'm busy for a few days, and can't log in, and look what happens!!!

Now, first of all, about those guidelines (note GUIDELINES, not RULES): I just went & looked at the GAGB guidelines page. I don't seem to be able to find any GAGB guidelines. I did find a copy of the HCC guidelines, and I found a comment that said:

The guidelines are so close to those already applied by Geocaching, we have lost very little, if anything.

We would like all other land owners to adopt these guidelines and would suggest one addition :- "No cache will be placed in or on a dry stone wall" (there are no dry stone walls in Hampshire)..

I am sure I read a comment that the (future) GAGB guidelines were something for the new committee to sort out.

Next, about the application of guidelines: I don't see any problem when GAGB sets up its own guidelines. It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site. So:

1) caches logged on GC.COM must meet the (future) GAGB guidelines, plus any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines, plus any GC.COM guidelines. (The guidelines will obviously all be interpreted by the relevant GC.COM approver)

2) caches logged on Navicache etc must meet any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines. If there are no site-specific guidelines, then just Navicache guidelines apply (erm, ARE there any? I honestly do not know!)

3) having said that, if you are a GAGB member, you will have promised to place caches to meet the (future) GAGB guidelines anyway.

And if you break the rules? Well, GC.COM can revoke your membership, as you broke their rules. So can GAGB. So can Navicache. And finally, the "offended landowner" is free to take "suitable action".

Now, someone questioned why HCC added in to the guidelines "For reasons of safety and security Hampshire County Council discourage geocaching on their land during the hours of darkness". I don't see the problem with that: they are simply covering themselves on the legal front.

Let me give a real example, but extended with a "what if?":

I was up near Peterborough on business, so went out, in the pitch black, in winter, to do a cache. I ended up walking down a muddy farm lane, across the farmyard (it was ok - it's a right of way) and into a field, where there was once a castle (but not a stone to be seen now!) and a cache.

As I entered the field, I had a good look around with my torch: it was good that I did, as about 10 to 20 ft to my right, the ground dissappeared down a steep slope, maybe 30 ft down to a stream. If I hadn't been paying attention, I could easily have slipped (I did say "field" and "winter", so that = muddy and slippery!), and broken a leg. At that point, I might find that I have undesired expenses (if I were self-employed, I would have no income) so might be interested in taking legal action.

Now, if I were on HCC land, I might feel that HCC were responsible, as they should have posted warnings, in case anyone went sight-seeing there in the dark. But, because HCC have issued a guideline, I would find it very much more difficult to win any legal action against them.

(Aa sideline, anyone placing a cache on HCC land - or any land with specific guidelines - might feel it worthwhile drawing attention to those guidelines in the cache notes, as they apply not just to cache placers, but to cache seekers too)

So far, I don't see any issues, so why has there been so much gnashing of teeth about issues?

Paul

Icenians

1st August 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 1 2003, 09:21 PM
1) caches logged on GC.COM must meet the (future) GAGB guidelines, plus any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines, plus any GC.COM guidelines. (The guidelines will obviously all be interpreted by the relevant GC.COM approver)

Why? You say Navicache cachers should place caches as per Navicache rules. Why can't GC.Com cachers place by GC.com rules?

So far, I don't see any issues, so why has there been so much gnashing of teeth about issues?

Others do see issues.

If this post has offended anyone please read it as my own opinion and note that it is not intended as a personal dig at anyone.

paul.blitz

1st August 2003, 10:37 PM

Back to the thread of this discussion: conflict of interests.

Yes, I can fully appreciate the reasons that people feel there could be problems with a "rule maker" also being the "rule applier".

I can also see that the GAGB guidelines will be created by a group on a committee, with much input from the members, and they may even be APPROVED by the members. So in THAT case, who *is* the rule-maker?

If you are going to suggest that a committee member should not be a cache approver for that reason, then you may end up having to exclude much of the GAGB membership for the same reason!

Ok, what is the current situation? GC.COM decide the guidelines, and GC.COM apply the guidelines when approving caches. The guidelines may be formally written down (as many are), but may also be merely "spoken, and infomal" guidelines.

So how do things get worse by allowing GAGB committee members to assist in the guideline creation process and act as cache approvers?

There are actually plenty of cases where the rule-makers are also the rule-appliers: look at many organisations or charities, where the committee / trustees make the rules, and are also the group that apply the rules. (Real example: the Hospital Radio where I am on the committee has the power to create "station rules"; it is at the same time that group of people who decide if the rules have been broken, and the action to taken. I'm sure this is the case in MANY similar organisations).

OK, I appreciate that this does not make the concept good, I merely note that it frequently happens.

Perhaps it might be sensible given the controversy, at least until the new committe has found its feet and created rules etc, that any GC.COM approvers do not stand for election on the GAGB committee.

I'm sure there will remain a difference of opinion... as there will about other issues. But there is a simple solution: if someone stands who YOU are not happy with, do not vote for them. If you don't find the potential "conflict of interests" to be a problem (maybe because you know how THAT PERSON will handle it) then you might want to vote FOR them.

I also hope that everyone is big enough to accept that they might be in the minority after the voting, and will have to accept a committee that includes people they do not, themselves, approve of.

Paul

paul.blitz

1st August 2003, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Icenians+Aug 1 2003, 09:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Icenians @ Aug 1 2003, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Aug 1 2003, 09:21 PM
1) caches logged on GC.COM must meet the (future) GAGB guidelines, plus any location-specific (eg HCC) guidelines, plus any GC.COM guidelines. (The guidelines will obviously all be interpreted by the relevant GC.COM approver)

Why? You say Navicache cachers should place caches as per Navicache rules. Why can't GC.Com cachers place by GC.com rules?
[/b][/quote]
erm, I did say: It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site

So in that case GC.COM guidelines for UK = GC.COM global guidelines + GAGB guidelines + Landowner guidelines.

And if Navicache adjust THEIR guidelines for cache approval to take onboard the GAGB ones too, then you have the same sort of requirement on Navicache too (the landowner guidlelines will apply in any case....).

Paul

Icenians

1st August 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 1 2003, 10:01 PM

erm, I did say: It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site

So in that case GC.COM guidelines for UK = GC.COM global guidelines + GAGB guidelines + Landowner guidelines.

And if Navicache adjust THEIR guidelines for cache approval to take onboard the GAGB ones too, then you have the same sort of requirement on Navicache too (the landowner guidlelines will apply in any case....).

Paul
Like I said in an earlier post. I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that. :)

Kev

Lassitude

2nd August 2003, 12:57 AM

Well here we go again. I think we could all do ourselves a favour stepping back from this and counting to ten. Arguments are very difficult to solve if both sides have a differing opinion. The simple fact is that nobody knows what the GAGB will develop into in the long run and certain teams have concerns about this. As was said in a previous post 'Let's agree to disagree' and leave it at that. The majority decision will stand and at the end of the day if Geocaching.com creator Jeremy says he approves of it that that is that. If you as a team are not happy with the decision then Navicache and geocahingworldwide need more caches! I don't mean that disrespectfully but I suspect if the GAGB had an endorsement from Jeremy would put an end to this.

Thanks

Chris

paul.blitz

2nd August 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Lassitude@Aug 1 2003, 11:57 PM
Well here we go again. I think we could all do ourselves a favour stepping back from this and counting to ten. Arguments are very difficult to solve if both sides have a differing opinion. The simple fact is that nobody knows what the GAGB will develop into in the long run and certain teams have concerns about this. As was said in a previous post 'Let's agree to disagree' and leave it at that. The majority decision will stand and at the end of the day if Geocaching.com creator Jeremy says he approves of it that that is that. If you as a team are not happy with the decision then Navicache and geocahingworldwide need more caches! I don't mean that disrespectfully but I suspect if the GAGB had an endorsement from Jeremy would put an end to this.

Thanks

Chris
In THIS case, I think we can NOT agree to disagree.

I put forward a simple concept: Icenians took something that is 100% obvious, and then says he can't agree with it.

Next, I will say that a grey plastic bag is NOT a black plastic bag, Iceniance will then say "I don't agree, so we'll need to agree to diasagree"!

Can someone ELSE (not Icenians, please) explain to me the problem with the comment:

erm, I did say: It seems sensible that GC.COM will accept the (future) GAGB guidelines as applying to any caches logged on their site

So in that case GC.COM guidelines for UK = GC.COM global guidelines + GAGB guidelines + Landowner guidelines.

... IF GC.COM take on an extra set of guidelines from GAGB, then there WILL be, without any questions, 3 sets of guidelines that may apply to a cache placement in UK.

Paul

Kouros

2nd August 2003, 01:20 PM

Won't Landowner Guidelines, and GAGB guidelines all be the same thing? The GC.com guidelines will surely make up a portion of both the previous, and there would therefore, ultimately, only be one set?

Or have I missed the baton?

paul.blitz

2nd August 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 2 2003, 12:20 PM
Won't Landowner Guidelines, and GAGB guidelines all be the same thing? The GC.com guidelines will surely make up a portion of both the previous, and there would therefore, ultimately, only be one set?

Or have I missed the baton?
With luck, most landowners WILL accept the GAGB guidelines.

However, I can see that some landowners may ask for extra rules (eg: British Waterways might ask that no caches be placed within 6 ft of a canal): the best solution would be to incorporate those into the GAGB rules.

However, that MIGHT not always be possible (lets imagine someone who INSISTS that caches on their land may ONLY be visited in the dark!): that would confilct with HCC guidelines, so you then have to hold a special set of rules for THAT landowner.

Hopefully the exceptions would be few & far between.

So, no, I don't think you missed the baton.

Paul

Chris n Maria

4th August 2003, 09:47 AM

:unsure: let me get this straight.

So Paul what you are suggesting is that any new rules added at the request of landowners is additive? Every new rule adds to the existing set of rules and is then aplied to the entire country?

Won't we end up with an incredibly restrictive set of rules?
won't most of these rules not be required by most landowners?

So for example the Forestry Comission says that it will allow caches but only with some sort of letterbox stamp - does that mean we will loose all content in UK caches?

What if the national Trust says that all caches must be in a container with the Big Brother logo on them - will that aply to all UK caches? :blink:

Surely if a landowner wants extras - they only apply to their land?

If I'm friends with a local farmer and he says that the best place to plant the cache is inside his drystone wall - surly that should be approved?

Confused of Essex

The Cuthberts

4th August 2003, 11:57 AM

I just noticed this thread on GC.com that seemed to reinforce some of the recent discussions about local guidelines/rules versus those decreed by GC.com.

GC.com discussion on approvers (http://ubbx.groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=8016058331&m=50460147)

It looks like GC.com are 'devolving' the creation of local rules to those that can deal with them more appropriately.

It's a fairly new thread so it'll be interesting to see what other regionals jump into the topic.

Andy

BugznElm'r

4th August 2003, 01:05 PM

BugznElm'r

4th August 2003, 01:39 PM

I would venture a guess that most of the issues/disagreements surrounding the GAGB and GC have had little/nothing to do with geocachers feeling that the HCC guidelines were wrong or silly but it had more to do with the fact that most geocachers didn't feel they had a hand to play in it or were asked if this is what they wanted. Some of us know the history behind the guidelines but I believe that most do not. They imaging scenarios where discussion might have gone badly, permissions withdrawn, caches removed and the game restricted. At the end of the day you can't blame cachers for saying "not in my name" or "I didn't ask for that".

In future, much more transparency is needed to prevent these problems otherwise it risks further distrust from the "cacher on the ground" and accusations of being a closed "magic circle" organization.

fiddo

4th August 2003, 04:00 PM

I venture to point out, that as geocachers, "playing " on the LANDOWERS land is by invertation & by their (rules) guidlines, & is not negotiable.Why is it assumed that the GAGB,G.com or who ever is in any position to dictate. If said landowner, let us play but say, only every other Tuesday, what right do any of us have to say, No thanks, that does not fit with XYZ guidlines. it would appear to me that there is a clear need to have local guidelines, as one size can not fit all, inspite of some peoples wishes.

Kouros

4th August 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 4 2003, 12:39 PM
In future, much more transparency is needed to prevent these problems otherwise it risks further distrust from the "cacher on the ground" and accusations of being a closed "magic circle" organization.
More transparency would be a very good thing.

Perhaps the site could have a "News" section, which would include the results of any meeting with any LOM, be they successful, failures, work in progress, or whatever.

Just an idea.

Icenians

4th August 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 4 2003, 06:01 PM
Perhaps the site could have a "News" section, which would include the results of any meeting with any LOM, be they successful, failures, work in progress, or whatever.
Excellent idea. It may also help avoid problems of the sort when people like me post stuff at the wrong time in negociations without realising the negociations are going on. :D

Kouros

4th August 2003, 11:58 PM

It may also help avoid problems of the sort when people like me post stuff at the wrong time in negociations without realising the negociations are going on

:D :D

But it would also be nice for others to be kept abreast of developments.

While the HCC negotiations were somewhat tentative, especially as they were the first major LOM to recognise Geocaching, perhaps future negotiations shouldn't be held behind closed doors?

Again, just a thought, which like all thoughts, may have flaws.

Tim and June

5th August 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 4 2003, 10:58 PM
But it would also be nice for others to be kept abreast of developments.

<snip>

Again, just a thought, which like all thoughts, may have flaws.
Agreed, it could be very good to keep members informed of what is being done.

There is, as you suggest a flaw which could jeopardise negotiations and the scenario is as follows, and YES ! it really did happen.

The local "branch" of "The Major Land Owner Company" has a "tin God" attitude. We discovered that when we first made contact with them. "Mr Bloggs said "We know that the XXXX acres of land is for public access, but we don't even want dog walkers there". Yes this was actually said.

Time to approach "Head Office".

If the local branch become aware that we are approaching their head office, they could make things much more difficult, or even impossible.

There is a situation right now, where the interested party does not want it publicised until all the "t"'s are crossed and the "i"'s dotted.

To protect the innocent, the names in the above have been changed. :lol:

That is not to say that we don't think a "news" service be a great addition to the site, it would be easy to implement too, particularly if it were part of the forums.

Thanks for the input.

Kouros

5th August 2003, 06:29 PM

The local "branch" of "The Major Land Owner Company" has a "tin God" attitude. We discovered that when we first made contact with them. "Mr Bloggs said "We know that the XXXX acres of land is for public access, but we don't even want dog walkers there". Yes this was actually said.

Nowt as queer as folk, I guess.

paul.blitz

5th August 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Aug 4 2003, 08:47 AM
So Paul what you are suggesting is that any new rules added at the request of landowners is additive? Every new rule adds to the existing set of rules and is then aplied to the entire country?

Won't we end up with an incredibly restrictive set of rules?
won't most of these rules not be required by most landowners?

I think a lot would depend on what the potential "new guideline" is. Let's take my original example: (hypothetically) BW asks that no cache be place within 10 ft of a canal.

I may be wrong, but aren't pretty well all canals run by BW? In that case a guideline that says "don't place a cache within 10ft of a canal" would seem to slot in ok on a set of "national guidelines".

But, yes, I can see there MIGHT be other cases where a separate guideline is needed.

As long as it's a "sensible" rule (and that would have to be decided by the democratically elected committee) and could sensibly fit into the standard guidelines, then I think that is the better option, as it gives one set of guidelines.

But let's take them one at a time.... its a situation that MIGHT never actually happen, IF we can persuade landowners that our guidelines work ok.

And does it MATTER if we have a few rules that don't apply to some landowners? At least they will realise that we ARE trying to be sensible, and cover most eventualities. Might also make them feel guilty if they ask for something special :-)

paul

MCL

6th August 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 5 2003, 06:29 PM

The local "branch" of "The Major Land Owner Company" has a "tin God" attitude. We discovered that when we first made contact with them. "Mr Bloggs said "We know that the XXXX acres of land is for public access, but we don't even want dog walkers there". Yes this was actually said.

Nowt as queer as folk, I guess.
Damn right. I can't imagine anything more silly that the sight of a man walking like a dog...

Teasel

6th August 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 5 2003, 06:18 PM
As long as it's a "sensible" rule (and that would have to be decided by the democratically elected committee) and could sensibly fit into the standard guidelines, then I think that is the better option, as it gives one set of guidelines.

But it seems that where more than one option is sensible, it is always the most restrictive that is included into the global guidelines. Choosing to keep the more permissive option in the GAGB rules, and acknowledge that local restrictions also apply would, IMHO, be a better approach.

For example, as I understand it, the proposed guidelines that T&J et al initially drew up for HCC did not discourage night caching. However, HCC would prefer that, on their land, caching was confined to the hours of daylight. I'm a little unhappy that, as a result of the HCCs position, night caching will now be discouraged over the whole of the country!

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 01:35 PM

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Teasel+Aug 6 2003, 12:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Aug 6 2003, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Aug 5 2003, 06:18 PM
As long as it's a "sensible" rule (and that would have to be decided by the democratically elected committee) and could sensibly fit into the standard guidelines, then I think that is the better option, as it gives one set of guidelines.

But it seems that where more than one option is sensible, it is always the most restrictive that is included into the global guidelines. Choosing to keep the more permissive option in the GAGB rules, and acknowledge that local restrictions also apply would, IMHO, be a better approach.

For example, as I understand it, the proposed guidelines that T&J et al initially drew up for HCC did not discourage night caching. However, HCC would prefer that, on their land, caching was confined to the hours of daylight. I'm a little unhappy that, as a result of the HCCs position, night caching will now be discouraged over the whole of the country! [/b][/quote]
That's been the problem all along. No mater what good came from the HCC guidelines/negotiations they were negotiated on behalf of all UK Geocachers before the association was set up and now being thrust on the membership. That was not democracy at work.

The GAGB MUST make sure that that kind of mistake is never allowed to happen again.

Tim and June

6th August 2003, 01:58 PM

I would venture to ask where does it say that geocaching at night is "discouraged over the whole of the country" ?

The guidelines say
For reasons of safety and security Hampshire County Council discourage geocaching on their land during the hours of darkness.

Please note that I have added the emphasis in red to ensure that nobody misses those words.

What caused HCC to include this was that they were reading logs and the GC.com forums. One of the managers read a cacher recommend that a certain cache be visited at night. The cache in question had a warning about safety because of dangerous drops!

The immediate reaction was to cover backside and totally BAN caching on their land during the hours of darkness. We were able to argue the point and turn this decision around. HCC have been immensely hospitable and open to suggestions and input from us. Therefore, we have to afford them the same courtesy.

Icenians

6th August 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 12:58 PM
I would venture to ask where does it say that geocaching at night is "discouraged over the whole of the country" ?
Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.

Nobody is saying the landowner shouldn't set whatever rules they like, just that they shouldn't automatically become country wide as a result.

It is a matter of FACT that HCC guidelines are/have been the ones GC.com are using.

Kev

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 12:58 PM
I would venture to ask where does it say that geocaching at night is "discouraged over the whole of the country" ?
OK, the HCC discourages night caching ... two questions ...

1 - How do they do that?
2 - Does the GAGB encourage or discourage it?

Pharisee

6th August 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 01:28 PM
OK, the HCC discourages night caching...

They can 'discourage' all they like but until they place an outright 'ban' nightcaching ('rules' and 'guidelines' again?) there is absolutely nothing to stop anyone going out to search for a cache on HCC land at night.

As for the GAGB... why should they be concerned if I want to cache at night. It has nothing what so ever to do with them. Providing I'm not breaking any local by-laws I'm free do so so if I wish. Even if I do chose to ignore any local bylaws, that still has nothing to do with them.

I really think it's time that we stopped all this confusing tip-toeing around.

RULES are RULES... they MUST be obeyed.

GUIDELINES mean NOTHING. They are for GUIDANCE... ADVICE... you are free to take it OR NOT as pleases you.

Sorry to shout but I'm getting just a little fed up with people talking about 'guidelines' when they actually mean 'rules'. If caches submitted for approval are not approved becaues they contravine a 'guideline' then it ceases to be a guideline and becomes a rule.

Tim and June

6th August 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 01:23 PM
Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.
YES !

Across the whole of the UK and in fact, around the whole WORLD,

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL discourage caching ON THEIR LAND which as far as I know, is only in Hampshire.

NOTICE THE WORD HAMPSHIRE the use of which does regionalise it somewhat !

Just as I was beginning to think that you were not deliberately stirring it up, I again begin to wonder. :wacko:

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 6 2003, 02:04 PM
Sorry to shout but I'm getting just a little fed up with people talking about 'guidelines' when they actually mean 'rules'. If caches submitted for approval are not approved becaues they contravine a 'guideline' then it ceases to be a guideline and becomes a rule.
Absolutely ... I'm also feeling the same. We're seeing a lot of this recently ... they're not rules, they're guidelines ... they're not guidelines, they just discourage it.

Let's start hiving some clarity and straight answers to valid questions.

Tim and June

6th August 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 01:28 PM
OK, the HCC discourages night caching ... two questions ...

1 - How do they do that?
2 - Does the GAGB encourage or discourage it?
1. By posting it as a guideline.
2. Neither. Each cacher is able to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not they deem the risk of night caching acceptable or otherwise.

I guess that once the GAGB has an established committee, we will have to have some sort of disclaimer.

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 01:23 PM
Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.
YES !

Across the whole of the UK and in fact, around the whole WORLD,

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL discourage caching ON THEIR LAND which as far as I know, is only in Hampshire.

NOTICE THE WORD HAMPSHIRE the use of which does regionalise it somewhat !

Just as I was beginning to think that you were not deliberately stirring it up, I again begin to wonder. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
So does the GAGB DISCOURAGE night caching too? :blink:

Tim and June

6th August 2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 02:18 PM
So does the GAGB DISCOURAGE night caching too? :blink:
Neither. Each cacher is able to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not they deem the risk of night caching acceptable or otherwise.

:angry:

Icenians

6th August 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 01:23 PM
Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.
YES !

Across the whole of the UK and in fact, around the whole WORLD,

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL discourage caching ON THEIR LAND which as far as I know, is only in Hampshire.

NOTICE THE WORD HAMPSHIRE the use of which does regionalise it somewhat !

Just as I was beginning to think that you were not deliberately stirring it up, I again begin to wonder. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
I'm not trying to stir anything up. I was answering your question.

I also see the point you are making that the guideline regarding night caching on HCC land would only apply to HCC land. You are right on that.

Tim and June

6th August 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 02:22 PM
I also see the point you are making that the guideline regarding night caching on HCC land would only apply to HCC land. You are right on that.
Thank heavens for that. I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining.

And that last comment is not directed solely at you, Icenians.

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 02:18 PM
So does the GAGB DISCOURAGE night caching too? :blink:
Neither. Each cacher is able to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not they deem the risk of night caching acceptable or otherwise.

:angry: [/b][/quote]
Glad we go that clear :D ... I was beginning to feel that the closer the elections were coming the fewer straight answers we were getting to straight questions.

Isn't it better to say then that the night-caching part should be better integrated in the the HCC guidelines as a disclaimer/footnote?

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 02:28 PM
Thank heavens for that. I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining.

And that last comment is not directed solely at you, Icenians.
Might it not also be the case that the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous. Might it not seem to some geocachers that night caching on HCC land would bring geocaching into disrepute in the eyes of the HCC?

What also bothers me is the range on answers with respect to guideline clarification ... they seem to range from dismissive to aggressive. Why? :unsure:

Tim and June

6th August 2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 02:37 PM
... they seem to range from dismissive to aggressive. Why?
Not sure I follow you, care to quote some examples.

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 02:37 PM
... they seem to range from dismissive to aggressive. Why?
Not sure I follow you, care to quote some examples. [/b][/quote]
OK, I'll bite with an example ... a few posts above you state:

" I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining."

Complaining? Are we complainint? Or asking for clarification/guidance?

However, I'm willing to let this pass (it's hard when someone appears to criticize someone else's work :) ) as I think there are better issues ... such as ...

Might it not also be the case that the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous. Might it not seem to some geocachers that night caching on HCC land would bring geocaching into disrepute in the eyes of the HCC?

Tim and June

6th August 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Aug 6 2003, 02:52 PM
OK, I'll bite with an example ... a few posts above you state:

" I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining."

Complaining? Are we complainint? Or asking for clarification/guidance?

However, I'm willing to let this pass (it's hard when someone appears to criticize someone else's work :) ) as I think there are better issues ... such as ...

Might it not also be the case that the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous. Might it not seem to some geocachers that night caching on HCC land would bring geocaching into disrepute in the eyes of the HCC?
OK, I apologise for the use of the word "complaining", I do think that the guideline could not be clearer, therefore I have got very fed up with with what has seemed to me to have decended to pedantic nit-picking of a very minor issue.

You are right about the criticism, we seem to be in a position of "damned if you do, damned if you dont".

As far as disrepute with HCC is concerned, yes, I guess caching on HCC land at night would tend to bring caching into disrepute with the guys who have worked hard to get these guidelines through. Would ignoring their request not be just a little disrespectul ?

But, last time I used big letters it worked, so I'll try it again.

HCC are trying to protect themselves against legal action should somebody get injured whist caching at night

These guidelines have been on the site for a couple of months giving ample opportunity to air opinions, why suddenly all the aggro about them now ?

BugznElm'r

6th August 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 03:17 PM
As far as disrepute with HCC is concerned, yes, I guess caching on HCC land at night would tend to bring caching into disrepute with the guys who have worked hard to get these guidelines through. Would ignoring their request not be just a little disrespectul ?

Thanks, that clarifies it for me.

The Hornet

6th August 2003, 05:02 PM

It could be the heat, it could be my old age ;) but whatever it is I'm genuinely uncertain as to the status of the HCC guidelines as outlined elsewhere on this site. I'd prefer to have started a new thread but the discussion is going on in this one so here goes.

I'll explain but first of let me say I am absolutely happy that any caches placed on HCC land MUST adhere to the current guidelines. If it's their land, THEY set the agenda. No argument so please no criticism OK? <_< <_< <_< <_<

I'll also state that I think they form a very sensible framework for caching generally ( I don't totally agree with everything stated but overall they are eminently sensible).

What bothers me, having read and re-read them just now is that in 14 of the 16 statements words and phrases such as "caches must" and "caches must not" and "should be" are used. To my mind then, these constitute RULES. There is no ambiguity in them, you must or must not do things. The other two use words like "onus" and "discourage" and therefore fall in the GUIDELINE camp.

The stated aims of GAGB on the same page say that "We would like all other land owners to adopt these guidelines ". Fair enough. Also these statements are now forming the basis of cache approval in the whole of the UK. I would like to suggest that we stop pussy footing around and call them what they are - RULES. Then there can be no argument, there can be no "I don't agree with this guideline and as it's only a recommendation I'll see fit to ignore it". I know full well that approach exists, and I've been criticised personally for saying exactly that :o

If you don't like the RULES then fight to get them changed but until they are changed, abide by them. Also it's all very well saying "but these RULES only apply to GAGB". Well yes to a certain extent but as we have seen, all new caches are being approved using them so they are starting to become the de facto GC.COM RULES for the UK. As I said before if you don't like the situation fight to change the RULES but while they are as they are, abide by them.

My suggestion therefore is to change their title from "Geocaching Guidelines for the UK" to something like "Rules for Geocaching in the UK" This would clarify the situation and hopefully help aged old buffers like me understand where we stand. :rolleyes: ;) ;) ;)

Lost in Space

6th August 2003, 05:22 PM

A RULE can only be called a RULE if there is a means of enforcing it and punishing those who "Break the Rules".

At the moment the only RULE that can apply is that for cache approval and is totally dependant on how much information the "planter" puts in his/her description.

Let's stick to guidelines.

:) :) :)

Muggle

6th August 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 03:17 PM
These guidelines have been on the site for a couple of months giving ample opportunity to air opinions, why suddenly all the aggro about them now ?
I think you will find that most people were quite comfortable with the GGC/GAGB guidelines until 30th July when Moss Trooper said this: "Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guidelines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches"
It was when he then did an about turn and announced his intention to stand for the GABG committee that prompted much of the heated exchanges in this thread.

Team Paradise

6th August 2003, 08:24 PM

I'm confused by the fuss... What the heck has cache placement approval got to do with anyone approving or disapproving of the act of night caching ?... Surely night caching is in the finding of the cache, not the approving of it, so no matter who's guidelines say what, it's got nowt to do with cache approval !

Icenians

6th August 2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Team Paradise@Aug 6 2003, 07:24 PM
I'm confused by the fuss... What the heck has cache placement approval got to do with anyone approving or disapproving of the act of night caching ?... Surely night caching is in the finding of the cache, not the approving of it, so no matter who's guidelines say what, it's got nowt to do with cache approval !
I think it wandered way off topic somewhere along the line. :D

The Hornet

6th August 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Icenians+Aug 6 2003, 07:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Icenians @ Aug 6 2003, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Team Paradise@Aug 6 2003, 07:24 PM
I'm confused by the fuss... What the heck has cache placement approval got to do with anyone approving or disapproving of the act of night caching ?... Surely night caching is in the finding of the cache, not the approving of it, so no matter who's guidelines say what, it's got nowt to do with cache approval !
I think it wandered way off topic somewhere along the line. :D [/b][/quote]
I was trying to work out what was a rule and what was a guideline.

This discussion has certainly wandered off the topic of "Conflict of Interest" so I'm saying no more and am planning for a caching expedition with Grandad tomorrow. Night night!

paul.blitz

6th August 2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by The Hornet@Aug 6 2003, 04:02 PM
My suggestion therefore is to change their title from "Geocaching Guidelines for the UK" to something like "Rules for Geocaching in the UK" This would clarify the situation and hopefully help aged old buffers like me understand where we stand.
"Rules are made to be broken"

If you call something a rule, then it is likely to rigidly enforced, good or bad.

Having them as "guidelines" allows them to be interpreted better.

Here's a hypotetical for you:

I create a cache, that HAS to be done at night. It involves looking at some sort of light display, which then leads to a microcache. The whole thing is in a safe, and well lit area.

It is 99.9% probable that the above cache (a) would only work at night; (B) is quite safe to do at night.

But if there is a "night caches not PERMITTED" rule, you're not allowed it. If there is a "night caches not encouraged" guideline then you will be allowed to place it, as long as it is otherwise deemed "sensible".

And I'm sure we could all come up with other possible caches that, with rigidly applied rules you'd just not be allowed to have, but common sense say would actually be quite suitable (and don't anyone dare mention Marmite jars again!!!).

Paul