Landowner database

[nobbynobbs]

Should the GAGB continue to hold the landowner database and continue to negotiate new agreements?

Or should they be hosted on the relevant listing site that they apply to, in effect, groundspeak. Meaning that further negotiations will be under the name of those people who use that listing site.

[DrDick&Vick]

surely the aggreements are there for use by cachers who use all listings sites

I am sure landowners really want to deal with several organisations instead of just one

[Clipper247]

I might be being a bit daft, but what benefit would there be to Groundspeak hosting the landowner agreements?

[Jacaru]

The GAGB should continue to negotiate as they have done a stirling job so far.

[Andalusite]

Groundspeak do not host local landowner agreements.

If the GAGB were to do away with the GLAD alternative arrangements would need to be made by responsible local cachers.

[nobbynobbs]

Just because groundspeak haven't doesnt mean they couldnt. It doesnt break any fundamental laws of physics.


But u miss the point, the two subjects which always create the angst are the rules and the guidelines because u speak for all cachers but have never asked anyone If they want u to.

You now have a democratic chance to win that argument . There are 500 members on Facebook you should win both these polls with ease and stop all those complaints. You will have a democratic right to do the rules and guidelines....

[DrDick&Vick]

One question I must ask, as there has been no fundamental changes to the GLAD over the past few of years, why did you not do anything about this when you were Chairman?

[trampyjoe]

There are 500 members on Facebook you should win both these polls with ease and stop all those complaints. You will have a democratic right to do the rules and guidelines....

By excluding every cacher in the UK that doesn't have a facebook account or isn't a member of the GAGB?

500 out of how many thousand?

[Alan White]

By excluding every cacher in the UK that doesn't have a facebook account or isn't a member of the GAGB?

I couldn't have put it better myself .

500 out of how many thousand?

From a recent discussion and analysis, there are about 8000 active cachers in GB.

[Jacaru]

And the majoirty don't bother going on either the Groundspeak forums or GAGB, so what exactly are you trying to achieve. It appears that you have a vendetta against the GAGB in general. You insist that you don't want to become a member yet continue to write about them with some venom. Is this really something that you are going on about for the good of the community or just some personal bee in your bonnet.

[nobbynobbs]

And the majoirty don't bother going on either the Groundspeak forums or GAGB, so what exactly are you trying to achieve. It appears that you have a vendetta against the GAGB in general. You insist that you don't want to become a member yet continue to write about them with some venom. Is this really something that you are going on about for the good of the community or just some personal bee in your bonnet.

Who are u asking? I am and have been a member for years.

The lack of me doing something as chairman precludese from doing something ever Richard?

And democratic ? Well the gagb has never asked whether thecachers of this country wish them to do these two fundamental things. there hasbeen the constant complaint over the years regarding this and what mandate they hold.
Most of the cachers are too apathetical to get involved regardless of their Facebook gagb or groundspeak involvement .
So because not everyone can be bothered to get involved no one should have the option?

The name calling has always said elitist and no mandate. There are now two polls I hope that people engage and vote . I suspect that there wont be much official embracing log the I'dea by the committee , I also suspect that those that are most vocal against will shy away because they won't be able to rally support.
Maybe a vote, however flawed , is better than no poll.

[Jacaru]

Sorry I should have made myself clear, the question was directed at Alan White.

[g0akh]

Shouldn't Groundspeak be asked if they are PREPARED to host an agreement database first?

[Alan White]

Sorry I should have made myself clear, the question was directed at Alan White.

That's the benefit of quoting in a forum: people can see which point is being addressed.

The issues with GAGB have been documented time and time again over the years on this forum and elsewhere, by me and others; most recently on here just a couple of days ago. I don't see the point of continually repeating it.

You asked what I'm trying to achieve. In essence, an acknowledgment and public statement from GAGB that:
- GAGB does not represent or speak for GB cachers, only its members
- GAGB rules and agreements do not apply to all cachers, only to its members.

[The Hornet]

Whatever the merits, or otherwise, about representation, rules/guidelines or whatever I think the GLAD is a separate issue. To my mind it is a useful repository of information which can be accessed by anyone and not just GAGB members.

I am guessing that most, if not all, agreements apply to GEOCACHES not listing sites in the view of Landowners. If this is the case then it would be wholly inappropriate to have them hosted on a single listing site.

[nobbynobbs]

Isn't that part of the issue. The agreements have been made by the gagb and other people making it sound like they have authority to negotiate for all the listing sites and all the people using those sites.
The landowner believes he has an agreement with a fully representing group that can censure and remove caches.
The truth is that no such authority or power exists. How many of the agreements actually apply to the other listing sites how many are valid at all.

If only one site uses them, if only one site has any authority to censure a cacher or demand a cache is removed....then agreements should be made in its name and held with it not the gagb.
That site, just like the guidelines, likes to hide behind the excuse of," its not our fault its in their agreement"

[trampyjoe]

A landowner isn't going to want the hassle of deciding which plastic box/ammo can they allow to be hidden on their land.

If the agreements are being used by other listing sites and the GAGB isn't just a slave to groundspeak, then the people that run the other listing sites need to be made aware of the situation.

The GAGB should seek, as a national organisation for all cachers, to include all listing sites within the landowner agreement.

[keehotee]

The GAGB should seek, as a national organisation for all cachers, to include all listing sites within the landowner agreement.

I might be wrong (as often happens), but none of the landowner agreements I've had a hand in establishing make any mention of particular listing sites. They have been made on behalf of the GAGB, and refer to "geocaches" without specifying where - or even if - they are listed online.

[trampyjoe]

I might be wrong (as often happens), but none of the landowner agreements I've had a hand in establishing make any mention of particular listing sites. They have been made on behalf of the GAGB, and refer to "geocaches" without specifying where - or even if - they are listed online.

oops didn't quote - I was refering to nobbynobbs' comment (in bold for the important parts)

The agreements have been made by the gagb and other people making it sound like they have authority to negotiate for all the listing sites and all the people using those sites.
The landowner believes he has an agreement with a fully representing group that can censure and remove caches.
The truth is that no such authority or power exists. How many of the agreements actually apply to the other listing sites how many are valid at all.

[Bill D (wwh)]

A Landowner Agreement is essentially permission granted by the landowner for caches to be placed on their land, provided the placement meets the landowner's requirements. The permission and conditions apply to anyone wishing to place a cache on that land regardless of how the cacher may choose to advertise the cache. As such, I feel that they should be hosted by GAGB rather than by any listing site.

[Alan White]

The permission and conditions apply to anyone wishing to place a cache on that land regardless of how the cacher may choose to advertise the cache.

Someone who is not a party to an agreement cannot possibly be bound by it, morally or legally. If GAGB makes an agreement then it can be argued that GAGB members are bound by it, but non-members are not. Much as it would like to, GAGB does not rule the (caching) world.

[Andalusite]

Just so we are clear on this, are you saying that if a landowner has stated that they do not want geocaches placed on their land you feel no need or reason to respect their wishes because these wishes have been publicised via the GLAD?


Or am I missunderstanding you?

[Graculus]

I'm posting this in two threads as reference is made to my my resource site, "follow-the-arrow" and the possibility of me hosting information and I wanted to explain what my site is all about.

When I became a reviewer in July 2008 the GAGB website was in real need of an update, it had guidelines and the GLAD and of course the forums but I felt it didn't offer cachers much more. For example the download page had very little in the way of actual resources for people. We reviewers were using map resources that were publicly available and I wanted to show cachers how to use them to help them when placing their own caches. I was getting enquiries from people about how to use their GPS for paperless caching and where they could find more information for example. So I created various pages on the site, overlays of land areas and several interactive online forms to apply for permission (that are linked to from the GLAD entries by the way). So my site has just grown as I've added more and more pages.

The GAGB site had a major update a while ago and now looks very smart but I have to say it still doesn't offer much more than it did before; the guidelines, GLAD and forum. The download page still has much the same on it. Take an example; you can download Lord Elphs icons but there is no explanation of what they are for or how you use them. I've created a page all about paperless caching including some downloadable guides that explain how to do things. I would point out my day job is writing and delivering technical training courses so doing this sort of thing is easy for me! Should the GAGB have this sort of thing on the site for people? Perhaps that's something for another discussion.

My paperless page brings me to an important point. That page is about paperless caching using www.geocaching.com, not any other listing site. This is because I'm a reviewer with the Groundspeak organisation and I also cache on that site too. I set up my site specifically to provide a resource for caching with geocaching.com. The GAGB works with all the listing sites and all of them can use the GLAD - we certainly do. So would I host the GLAD on my site? The answer is no for two simple reasons. Firstly my site only represents one listing site and I have no connection with any other sites so that would make the GLAD exclusive to geocaching.com in effect. Secondly the site is my own personal creation, I pay the annual hosting charge, I do not get any funding or donations for it. Groundspeak have nothing to do with the site. I created the site to help my fellow cachers, I'm happy to bear the costs. So I can make the personal decision that I don't want to host the GLAD because I wouldn't have time (or inclination) to keep it up to date. I think in that respect the GAGB do an excellent job with it.

The GLAD is an important resource for us reviewers and we appreciate the hard work the GAGB have put into creating it and negotiating the agreements. But if it is to be used by all listing sites then an 'independant' location is important for it. There have been comments that it could be hosted directly by Groundspeak. I'm only a volunteer with that organisation, I'm not employed by them so cannot give any opinion on what they would say to that suggestion but I think the answer would be no again for the reasons given above, it would make it exclusive to Groundspeak and they (or probably us reviewers) would have to maintain it!

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Bill D (wwh)]

Someone who is not a party to an agreement cannot possibly be bound by it, morally or legally.

In the context of this discussion that's nonsense. You're taking it out of context and playing on the word "agreement". Perhaps "Agreement" wasn't the best choice of name for the landowner permissions in the GLAD, but that doesn't change their content, which is that of permission subject to conditions.

It seems to me that a landowner does have a moral (and, I think, a legal) right to state that they will only permit an activity to take place on their land if their conditions are adhered to.

[Alan White]

In the context of this discussion that's nonsense.

I disagree. What is nonsense is that GAGB - essentially a handful of cachers - makes a...let's call it an "arrangement" with a body and then believes that the terms of that arrangement apply to everyone else on the planet. Sorry, but it's pure fantasy. I am not a lawyer, and English contract law is extremely complex, but I am surprised that the lawyer which GAGB must surely have consulted before reaching each agreement has not explained the issues involved.

Let's try an example: the local allotment association, whose plots are adjacent to my otherwise unused garage, approach me to ask if they can store some tools in my garage and collect and return them as they need to. I, being an amenable sort of chap, agree and, just to cover ourselves and satisfy our insurance companies, we draw up an agreement. Does that mean that I've allowed everyone in the neighbourhood to store their tools in my garage and visit whenever they like? Of course it doesn't, and neither does a GAGB agreement.

Here's another: I wish to place a cache and personally approach the landowner. He agrees and the cache is placed. Does that mean that every other cacher is free to place a cache on land owned by the same person? Of course not.

[FuzzyBears]

I disagree. What is nonsense is that GAGB - essentially a handful of cachers - makes a...let's call it an "arrangement" with a body and then believes that the terms of that arrangement apply to everyone else on the planet. Sorry, but it's pure fantasy. I am not a lawyer, and English contract law is extremely complex, but I am surprised that the lawyer which GAGB must surely have consulted before reaching each agreement has not explained the issues involved.

Let's try an example: the local allotment association, whose plots are adjacent to my otherwise unused garage, approach me to ask if they can store some tools in my garage and collect and return them as they need to. I, being an amenable sort of chap, agree and, just to cover ourselves and satisfy our insurance companies, we draw up an agreement. Does that mean that I've allowed everyone in the neighbourhood to store their tools in my garage and visit whenever they like? Of course it doesn't, and neither does a GAGB agreement.

Here's another: I wish to place a cache and personally approach the landowner. He agrees and the cache is placed. Does that mean that every other cacher is free to place a cache on land owned by the same person? Of course not.

Much as I don't like them I don't think the Agreements work that way
From what I have read the agreements lay down basic rules and don't give outright permission to place a cache just that they will allow it if certain conditions are met
The gardeners have an agreement but each one would have to ask permission to store tools

If you approached the landowner and negotiated your own agreement you would quite possibly have the same restrictions and so would anyone who used your agreement Just the GAGB or whoever negotiated the agreement and allowed the GAGB to list it have saved you the work

I still don't they are a good idea but if we need them leave them where they are its what the GAGB do well

[keehotee]

I disagree. What is nonsense is that GAGB - essentially a handful of cachers - makes a...let's call it an "arrangement" with a body and then believes that the terms of that arrangement apply to everyone else on the planet. Sorry, but it's pure fantasy. I am not a lawyer, and English contract law is extremely complex, but I am surprised that the lawyer which GAGB must surely have consulted before reaching each agreement has not explained the issues involved.

Let's try an example: the local allotment association, whose plots are adjacent to my otherwise unused garage, approach me to ask if they can store some tools in my garage and collect and return them as they need to. I, being an amenable sort of chap, agree and, just to cover ourselves and satisfy our insurance companies, we draw up an agreement. Does that mean that I've allowed everyone in the neighbourhood to store their tools in my garage and visit whenever they like? Of course it doesn't, and neither does a GAGB agreement.

Here's another: I wish to place a cache and personally approach the landowner. He agrees and the cache is placed. Does that mean that every other cacher is free to place a cache on land owned by the same person? Of course not.

You seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you want to approach a landowner, and arrange to place caches, that's your right. Go for it.

The GAGB landowner agreements are negotiated on behalf of all cachers - whether or not they are GAGB members, Groundspeak cachers, Opencaching cachers, supporters of the GAGB, or whatever.

Please, follow your principles, and don't place caches without insisting on explicit, personal permission from any landowners that either have or haven't already agreed to allow caching under a GAGB agreement! Really - you're making a rod for your own back - but at the end of the day the only time you're wasting is your own.

[Predictable Bob]

Someone who is not a party to an agreement cannot possibly be bound by it, morally or legally. If GAGB makes an agreement then it can be argued that GAGB members are bound by it, but non-members are not. Much as it would like to, GAGB does not rule the (caching) world.

I have taken legal opinion from my son and he is of the opinion that while you may not be bound by any such agreement if you choose not to comply with the conditions of the agreement then the landowner could consider you to have committed trespass by placing a cache on his land

[Bill D (wwh)]

I disagree. What is nonsense is that GAGB - essentially a handful of cachers - makes a...let's call it an "arrangement" with a body and then believes that the terms of that arrangement apply to everyone else on the planet. Sorry, but it's pure fantasy. I am not a lawyer, and English contract law is extremely complex, but I am surprised that the lawyer which GAGB must surely have consulted before reaching each agreement has not explained the issues involved.

Let's try an example: the local allotment association, whose plots are adjacent to my otherwise unused garage, approach me to ask if they can store some tools in my garage and collect and return them as they need to. I, being an amenable sort of chap, agree and, just to cover ourselves and satisfy our insurance companies, we draw up an agreement. Does that mean that I've allowed everyone in the neighbourhood to store their tools in my garage and visit whenever they like? Of course it doesn't, and neither does a GAGB agreement.

Here's another: I wish to place a cache and personally approach the landowner. He agrees and the cache is placed. Does that mean that every other cacher is free to place a cache on land owned by the same person? Of course not.

You're evading the real issues.

If a landowner chooses to allow only GAGB members to place caches on their land then obviously that applies only to GAGB members and no-one else has their permission.

If a landowner chooses to allow anyone to place a cache on their land subject to their conditions then those conditions apply to everyone. Anyone who doesn't observe those conditions doesn't have their permission.

[Alan White]

You're evading the real issues.

I'm not intentionally evading any issues, real or otherwise. What did you have in mind?

The difficulty I have is that very few of the agreements specify the parties to the agreement: in a random selection the New Forest one is the only one I've found which does, and, as we know from previous discussions, that agreement gives permission only to the GAGB committee. For the rest, given that the parties aren't specified then not only can we not be sure whom they apply to but also my understanding is that an agreement which doesn't specify the parties is unenforceable.

Surely one of the most important things an organisation like GAGB should do is to protect its members. Agreements should be a perfect way to provide some of that protection but they seem to me to be lacking in so many respects: lack of parties, lack of dates[1], out of date links[2] etc.


[1] e.g. https://www.gagb.org.uk/agreement_view.php?p=37 mentions a trial period but doesn't specify when it starts or ends, or the outcome.
[2] e.g. https://www.gagb.org.uk/agreement_view.php?p=34

[t.a.folk]

If GAGB folds what would happen to Permissions Agreements with bodies ,like the New Forset F.C.mentioned in previous posting,where permission has been granted and the Permit Holder ,as far as the agreeing body is concerned, is overseeing that the terms and conditions of the agreement are maintained ?


If anyone wants to pick holes in spelling sentence construction,punctuation ,etc ,etc etc of the above go ahead ,but don't expect us to respond .
We are only wondering what would happen to our caches placed under the umbrella of above agrement .

[The Wombles]

If GAGB folds what would happen to Permissions Agreements with bodies ,like the New Forset F.C.mentioned in previous posting,where permission has been granted and the Permit Holder ,as far as the agreeing body is concerned, is overseeing that the terms and conditions of the agreement are maintained ?
.

We didn't consider what happens if GAGB folds; the relationship with NF FC is good so I would hope they would allow the agreement to be transferred to another group.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I'm not intentionally evading any issues, real or otherwise. What did you have in mind?

Principally this...

Someone who is not a party to an agreement cannot possibly be bound by it, morally or legally. If GAGB makes an agreement then it can be argued that GAGB members are bound by it, but non-members are not.

To which I replied...

You're evading the real issues.

If a landowner chooses to allow only GAGB members to place caches on their land then obviously that applies only to GAGB members and no-one else has their permission.

If a landowner chooses to allow anyone to place a cache on their land subject to their conditions then those conditions apply to everyone. Anyone who doesn't observe those conditions doesn't have their permission.

You said or implied that the landowner permissions and conditions set out in the GLAD only apply to GAGB members. With possible stated exceptions, they don't, they apply to all cachers.

[Alan White]

You said or implied that the landowner permissions and conditions set out in the GLAD only apply to GAGB members. With possible stated exceptions, they don't, they apply to all cachers.

As very few (one?) of the agreements specify the parties then it's impossible to say definitively who the agreement applies to. It seems obvious to me that an agreement applies only to those who were involved in it and anyone who has explicitly agreed to be bound by it, perhaps by being a member of the organisation which concluded the agreement.

Anyone who is not in one of the above categories, which means all cachers except GAGB members, is not bound by any of GAGB's agreements.

However, merely saying something - whether it's me or you - does not make it true. What does the lawyer which GAGB must surely have consulted in making these agreements say?

We do seem to go around in circles with this discussion, not just in this thread but many times over the years. GAGB thinks it represents all cachers and that all cachers are bound by its agreements. I and at least some other non-members think neither.

What saddens me most is that GAGB members are now posting SBAs on caches which they believe are placed without permission. If that's the sort of member GAGB attracts then there are soon going to be very few caches in GB. What a great achievement that would be for GAGB.

[Jacaru]

What was it I used to do when my kids stamped their feet because they weren't getting the answer they wanted, ahh yes. Ignore. I think that's what I'll do with Mr Whites posts now. I am bored of him.

[Predictable Bob]

Alan, I suspect that it may have been said before but it is highly likely that a landowner will have no knowledge of the plethora of different caching organisations and I suspect that even if they were they would expect that conditions agreed with one organisation would apply to all.

While you may not be personally bound by an agreement made by the GAGB if you do not have an alternative agreement in place and chose to place a cache that did not comply with the landowners conditions then you would be at risk of prosecution.

Obviously the above scenario wouldn't apply if the agreement in place was specifically for GAGB members as the placing of a cache by a non member would be 'illegal' regardless of whether or not it met the landowners conditions

[Mrs Blorenge]

What saddens me most is that GAGB members are now posting SBAs on caches which they believe are placed without permission. If that's the sort of member GAGB attracts then there are soon going to be very few caches in GB. What a great achievement that would be for GAGB.

"The sort of member..."

Would you like to clarify what you mean by that, please?

You seem to be suggesting that if a geocacher finds a cache that they think is a bad placement (due to position, or any other reason) then they should not put an Needs Archive log on it to alert the local reviewer to have a look at the situation. I don't see that there's anything wrong in taking the above action - whether they are a GAGB member or not should have no bearing on the matter. It doesn't mean that the cache will be archived, simply that the reviewer will look, make a judgement and may (or may not) decide to take some action on the perceived issue.

[markandlynn]

Hmmm wonder what we do about agreements listed on both the landowner and the GLAD if the above poll goes the other way ?

Its seems important to me that the FC agreement is listing site agnostic

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/...ue/infd-7tabvs

https://www.gagb.org.uk/agreement_view.php?p=36

[Happy Humphrey]

As far as I've seen, the GAGB doesn't necessarily have to negotiate a permission for it to be listed.

I've seen cases where an individual cacher (who may or may not be a GAGB member) has negotiated some sort of arrangement with a landowner whereby caches can be placed on that land by anyone (normally under certain restrictions).

It seems fairly obvious that having a centralised noticeboard to publicise such arrangements is useful, as the arrangement would otherwise go unnoticed by interested parties. It helps the landowner as well, who doesn't have to keep on fielding separate cache permission requests from all and sundry. The GLAD seems a reasonable solution.

I think that regarding these as agreements between the GAGB and landowners is missing the point. The GAGB are simply hosting the noticeboard.

There's also an assumption that such arrangements are about geocaches, not about listings. So if permission is granted to place a cache, the landowner isn't interested in where it's listed.

[keehotee]

While you may not be personally bound by an agreement made by the GAGB if you do not have an alternative agreement in place and chose to place a cache that did not comply with the landowners conditions then you would be at risk of prosecution.

Not disagreeing with you in principle - but being pedantic....

Trespass - in this country at least - is a civil tort, not a criminal offence (other than in a National Park where it is detailed in the byelaws for that park, and on some military areas).
A private landowner could bring a civil claim against you for placing a cache without permission - but his only claim would be for provable damages caused as a result. There would not be a prosecution for the act of trespass alone.

[Predictable Bob]

Fair comment - the legal eagle wasn't around to do the quality check !

[Graculus]

As far as I've seen, the GAGB doesn't necessarily have to negotiate a permission for it to be listed.

I've seen cases where an individual cacher (who may or may not be a GAGB member) has negotiated some sort of arrangement with a landowner whereby caches can be placed on that land by anyone (normally under certain restrictions).

It seems fairly obvious that having a centralised noticeboard to publicise such arrangements is useful, as the arrangement would otherwise go unnoticed by interested parties. It helps the landowner as well, who doesn't have to keep on fielding separate cache permission requests from all and sundry. The GLAD seems a reasonable solution.

I think that regarding these as agreements between the GAGB and landowners is missing the point. The GAGB are simply hosting the noticeboard.

There's also an assumption that such arrangements are about geocaches, not about listings. So if permission is granted to place a cache, the landowner isn't interested in where it's listed.

We reviewers have put some in the GLAD as well, Spitchwick Commons on Dartmoor as an example from me. A cache placer contacted me after the landowner complained, I got a map of the area and created a Google overlay and it all went into the GLAD as 'Caching not allowed'.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[nobbynobbs]

In an ideal world it would be great to have a map of the UK with all agreements loaded as overlays so that each and every cache could be quickly checked to see if they were covered.
I know this is a pipe dream unfortunately due to the complexities of land ownership.

So it would appear that some of the angst that is always directed at the directory is because it is perceived as being a list of GAGB agreements, made by the GAGB for the GAGB.

Could this just be an education requirement and a rewording/rebranding required?

Good to have the open debate though prior to the forums possibly closing to non members.

[Graculus]

I've created a lot of overlays that open in Google maps for the GLAD. Example is the Hants and IoW Wildlife Trust. I've hand drawn all of these maps because I couldn't get the digital mapping data. My only concern with these overlays is they don't appear obviously linked to on some GLAD entries. The Hants one above, if you look at the GLAD page the link is right at the bottom with no explanation of what it is. How would someone know what this link is for? Many are like this. I think the GLAD could do with a bit of a makeover.

We do have other mapping overlays based on digital maps I've been able to get - National Trust Wales is an example - but for licence purposes the organisations won't make them available for the public via the GAGB or the Groundspeak site or my resource site. We can use them to check locations only. I understand the reasons but it would be useful to have more locations mapped like this for everyone to see.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[nobbynobbs]

I've created a lot of overlays that open in Google maps for the GLAD. Example is the Hants and IoW Wildlife Trust. I've hand drawn all of these maps because I couldn't get the digital mapping data. My only concern with these overlays is they don't appear obviously linked to on some GLAD entries. The Hants one above, if you look at the GLAD page the link is right at the bottom with no explanation of what it is. How would someone know what this link is for? Many are like this. I think the GLAD could do with a bit of a makeover.

We do have other mapping overlays based on digital maps I've been able to get - National Trust Wales is an example - but for licence purposes the organisations won't make them available for the public via the GAGB or the Groundspeak site or my resource site. We can use them to check locations only. I understand the reasons but it would be useful to have more locations mapped like this for everyone to see.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

I think part of that problem is that some organisations just have no idea what to do to get their land organised on a map.
They certainly need to learn that part of any agreement should involve disclosing any map that exists. It's possible for you to use the various resources to check the location but if the cacher cant then should they place them with a different listing site there's no easy way to find out.

[Graculus]

I think part of that problem is that some organisations just have no idea what to do to get their land organised on a map.
They certainly need to learn that part of any agreement should involve disclosing any map that exists. It's possible for you to use the various resources to check the location but if the cacher cant then should they place them with a different listing site there's no easy way to find out.

I disagree with some of this because the organisations I've approached like the FC, NT, CADW Wales and Richmond Council as examples all have a well organised mapping department and maps available. I've been fortunate to get hold of these and we use them when reviewing. As I said it's annoying the organisations won't make them public. The wildlife trusts are examples where their mapping is variable. Some have digital maps others don't. Some I've contacted have also been reluctant to help even though it is to their advantage. That's why I've just taken the maps off their website and drawn my own overlays. These of course I can make public as they are my own creating in effect.

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Happy Humphrey]

So it would appear that some of the angst that is always directed at the directory is because it is perceived as being a list of GAGB agreements, made by the GAGB for the GAGB.

I didn't realise that there was such angst, but if there is it would seem sensible to make it clear that the directory is no more than a list of contributions from various sources. Although the heading seems to convey that meaning already;

All agreements may be listed here, regardless of whether GAGB members had any part in their negotiation.

I would have added a disclaimer as well; presumably many arrangements are accepted for the database without being checked. Also, someone may have agreed the initial arrangement some time ago but not given notice that it has since expired. An agreement may also appear to exist but the management at the site could be unaware due to staff (or managment company) changes.

[Graculus]

<snip>An agreement may also appear to exist but the management at the site could be unaware due to staff (or managment company) changes.

I've had this happen myself. Keeping the GLAD - and in my case my map overlays up to date is a continuing task and both us reviewers and the GAGB are volunteers doing this. How much time do we devote to it?

Chris
Graculus
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk
Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[Happy Humphrey]

I wouldn't recommend spending any serious time on it.
Just make clear the limitations of the data, and ask that anyone who uses an agreement provides feedback about whether the details need amending in any way. The forum would be fine for that, or perhaps a message to someone in the GAGB.