Permision Granted

[markandlynn]

OK folks we have the GAGB landowners database

We have lots of approvals

We have some bans.

What do we need to do to (as only forum readers are aware of these issues)

1

Make the sport official (government approval?)

2

Get more approvals (so that peer pressure can be used)

3

Make cachers more aware of these issues of permision and banning (would copying the BBWOT email as a note to each cache we visit be appropriate?)

4

Who are the major landowners we should be talking to (british waterways springs to mind)

5

Get more CITO events (how many have there ever been in the UK i only know of two)

6

A.O.B.

[+Happy Humphrey]

My opinion is;

 

1 (Make the sport official) - No: it's good that the hobby/pastime/sport is as informal as possible, and we keep professionalism and bureaucracy out of it. It's great to go out and do something at a human level with a healthy dose of amateurism thrown in.

 

2 (Get more approvals) - yes.

 

3 (copying the BBWOT email etc.) - don't overdo it: this isn't what it's all about, it's just a necessary evil. Keep it out of cache logs.

 

4 (Who are the major landowners ) - can't answer this.

 

5 (Get more CITO events ) - sounds like a good idea.

 

6 (AOB) - try and make cachers more aware of GAGB guidelines. Also educate landowners more - the inclination will be to ban the whole thing unless they see that it is beneficial to their image and that problems are very unlikely to occur.

 

In the rock climbing world there was a big problem with landowners (and still is, but only to a very limited extent). Often years of negotiation was required: as you can imagine there was a lot of talk of insurance problems (which rarely, if ever, materialised). There was trouble with sea cliffs, where nesting birds was the issue (this began with a blanket ban, but eventually evolved into agreements to limit climbing during some very specific periods in particular areas of cliff).

It might be worth contacting the BMC (British Mountaineering Council), who have huge experience of access negotiation.

 

HH.

[+mongoose39uk]

To add to what has been said above, yes the BMC and local climbing clubs (lets be real they did most of the work), have negotiated access in a wide variety of situations. I would also like to point out some of this access was not always negotiated in a friendly manner and in the late 70's, early 80's it sometimes involved organised trespass. This was certainly the case at Den Lane quaries in Uppermill.

 

They even negotiated access to an sssi that only rock climbers and not the general public had access to.

 

But do we really want an organisation like the BMC involved?

[+The Forester]

Who are the major landowners we should be talking to

 

In Scotland there's an excellent resource for this.

 

It's a book called "Who Owns Scotland" by Andy Wightman. It lists the 258 major landowners and their estates and shows county by county maps of each large land-holding. It's a formidable piece of work in a country where obtaining such information is notoriously difficult.

 

There is a website, which is very much a matter of work in progress and is not yet anything like as comprehensive as the book.

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+Happy Humphrey]

Mongoose,

Just to clear up any confusion, I was suggesting contacting the BMC for advice rather than involving them in actual negotiation. They will know what approaches work and what don't, and what action to take in different circumstances.

 

(I've climbed a few routes at Den Lane - also Running Hill Pits and Alderman, Shooter's Nab and Pule Hill by the way!).

 

HH.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Happy Humphrey

[+mongoose39uk]

Mongoose,

Just to clear up any confusion, I was suggesting contacting the BMC for advice rather than involving them in actual negotiation. They will know what approaches work and what don't, and what action to take in different circumstances.

 

(I've climbed a few routes at Den Lane - also Running Hill Pits and Alderman, Shooter's Nab and Pule Hill by the way!).

 

HH.

For the other places you mentioned. You used to have to ring Mr. Crowther at Uperwood House the land owner for access. I never knew him to say no (did sometimes take a while to get of the phone though).

 

Good places to climb (apart from Den Lane), but always prefered the Chew valley crags myself.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[+Learned Gerbil]

Talking of making things official - I ma not sure what that means, but geocaching appears to have official approaval as ODPM list Geocaching as one of the ways local authorities can encourage people to use open spaces.

[+Pieman]

I'm in very, very protracted negotiations with British Waterways re a cache. It's now with the Head of Leisure having been knocked back by the local branch without reason (who actually have several caches on their land, I guess without permission). I'm hoping that the Head of Leisure might give a blanket style agreement and if so will add to the database.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

How about No 7: All placers to provide the name and contact details of the person giving permission, with random checks made to check that the details are accurate.

 

No 5: make that 3 CITO events, I have location sorted which was nominated by a local CC, and have found a suitable refreshments location for afterwards today (nice food good beer) and just have to firm up a date in July.

 

No 2: because of no 5 I'm now contacting cache placers with caches on this CC's land to get them to obtain permission as they are aware of these caches, luckily they have turned out to Pro geocaching and just wish to have contact details at present.

 

No 1: we need to get English Nature, National Trust, CADW and CCW and other government departments totally on our side and Geocaching will become officially recognised with out us have to campaign for it to become so, and avoiding a situation where we are legaly regulated.

 

I realise No 7 is controversial but this option would help reduce problems with land owners, and at the same time keep us self regulating as we would be seen to be acting in a proper manner.

 

Dave

[+wildlifewriter]

I realise No 7 is controversial but this option would help reduce problems with land owners, and at the same time keep us self regulating as we would be seen to be acting in a proper manner.

Good one. If all cache-placers are acting responsibly, and obtaining permission where it's required, then there could be no possible objection to such a measure.

 

But I bet there will be...

 

It would also help if the GC.com guidelines could be re-written (again) so as to be more complete, consistent and sensible. At present, they are as full of loopholes as... as a thing with lots of loopholes in it.*

 

It's the defective guidelines, I believe, which occasionally place Reviewers in the sort of invidious position which they'd probably rather not be in.

 

-Wlw.

 

* (Possibly a castle, though that's not the image I was looking for.)

[nobby.nobbs]

the main problem we face is that agreements are very difficult to obtain and really easy to loose just by one idiots inconsiderate actions. once lost we'll never get them back. so what sanctions can we place against those people to try to keep them on track?

 

sssi's are not off limits rangers will often happily help find somewhere that's not going to disturb anything, or to agree to a cache but say not during breeding season.....

 

as i said though it'll be the selfish individual who'll ruin it for the rest of us. so what do we do to educate tat person?

[+naffita]

How about No 7: All placers to provide the name and contact details of the person giving permission, with random checks made to check that the details are accurate.

 

No 5: make that 3 CITO events, I have location sorted which was nominated by a local CC, and have found a suitable refreshments location for afterwards today (nice food good beer) and just have to firm up a date in July.

 

No 2: because of no 5 I'm now contacting cache placers with caches on this CC's land to get them to obtain permission as they are aware of these caches, luckily they have turned out to Pro geocaching and just wish to have contact details at present.

 

No 1: we need to get English Nature, National Trust, CADW and CCW and other government departments totally on our side and Geocaching will become officially recognised with out us have to campaign for it to become so, and avoiding a situation where we are legaly regulated.

 

I realise No 7 is controversial but this option would help reduce problems with land owners, and at the same time keep us self regulating as we would be seen to be acting in a proper manner.

 

Dave

I wonder if you are single handedly trying to destroy caching in this country.

You are contacting cachers because the CC is aware of caches. Who told them? and what if they had said 'no', you admit that 'luckily they are pro-caching'. And why do you even imagine it's your right to contact others and require them to get permission. It won't occur, but you would get short shrift from me.

You will never get blanket permission from all public bodies, it is and always will be, easier to say no than to find out what it's about.

If a cache is in a public place, then permission is implied, the place is public, we are members of the public, we do not need further permission to enter or use public land.

You stick your oar in and then like several others before you, you will dissapear when the do-do hits the fan.

We already have GAGB working quietly towards better public relations, slowly it must be said, but a loose cannon with a bee in his bonnet is not what we need.

Butt out.

[+wildlifewriter]

If a cache is in a public place, then permission is implied, the place is public, we are members of the public, we do not need further permission to enter or use public land.

Because a parcel of land is in public ownership, you think that you have implicit permission to place a cache on it?

 

It sounds to me as if YOU are a greater threat to the future of the activity than anything DaveMP is doing.

 

-Wlw.

[+naffita]

Because a parcel of land is in public ownership, you think that you have implicit permission to place a cache on it?

 

OK, then tell me what you will be doing that is illegal? Walking on public land? Looking in bushes? Looking under rocks?

Of course caching is not specifically allowed but then neither will you have permission for many other activities spelled out, it is implied that lawful activity is allowed.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

In reply naffita to your comments. I only contacted the CC to ask them to nominate a location for a CITO event, I was asked to contact John Richards about it who had suggested a location. During the telephone conversation "He" mentioned about caches placed "with out permission" which came as a surprise to me that he knew they existed! I know from personal experience that there is a diferance in the no's that he is aware off and the actual no of caches, and if he ever did a on line check it would come as a surprise to him. The no is enough to maybe change his mind.

 

Without checking your stats to see how many caches you've placed, how many actualy have permission off the landowner, and how many did you just tick the box to state that you had permission and didn't?

 

As for your comment that "You stick your oar in and then like several others before you, you will dissapear when the do-do hits the fan." I spent 6 months working with both the landowner and CCW to obtain permission for a cache, and have had a cache refused by the Woodland Trust and I'm still here and will be for the long haul! At least I'm prepared to work to bring geocaching forward rather than drag it backwards like the attitude that you show.

 

And in answer to your comment about GAGB, at my request they have made contact with John Richards, who is using the CITO event as a building block working towards a permanent aggrement with the CC.

 

One last comment which might get censored or cause me to be banned. With Geocaching coming to the attention of more land owners, we run the chance of even more areas being placed out of bounds to us. Unfortunately Neanderthals with the attitude that you have only increase that chance! Wise up and realise that this is no longer a underground hobby but has come out into the open in a kicking and screaming way and as such we need to work with all landowners and actualy obtain permission to place a cache, because at the end of the day we do not have any rights just to place a cache without permission even on publicly owned land!

 

Dave

Edited April 30, 2005 by Mancunian Pyrocacher

[+naffita]

My last comment on this and I have to repeat myself once again. You can carry out any lawful activity on public land.

Part of the interest in this hobby of ours is that caches are secret, muggles pass by only a few feet away and don't know they are there, if a cache is hidden properly then no-one other than another cacher should ever discover it.

Involve public bodies and, just like in America's public parks, there will be a blanket ban.

Oh, why should your comments be cencored? This is a public forum, waffle away with psyco babble to your hearts content.

[+minstrelcat]

OK, then tell me what you will be doing that is illegal? Walking on public land? Looking in bushes? Looking under rocks?

None of those is illegal - the issue is with the leaving of a box. I'm not sure even that is illegal but the owner of the land has every right to not allow stuff to be left on his land without permission. Even 'public' land is owned by someone or some organisation.

 

Lisa

[+wildlifewriter]

Part of the interest in this hobby of ours is that caches are secret, muggles pass by only a few feet away and don't know they are there, if a cache is hidden properly then no-one other than another cacher should ever discover it.

In your fevered imagination, perhaps.

 

But those of us who have to deal with real landowners and real local Councils, do so with an awareness of the real situation.

 

-Wlw.

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

"Loose cannon, bee in bonnet , Psycho babble"

Grow up or shut up Naffita

[+Hampk]

Part of the interest in this hobby of  ours is that caches are secret, muggles pass by only a few feet away and don't know they are there, if a cache is hidden properly then no-one other than another cacher should ever discover it.

In your fevered imagination, perhaps.

 

But those of us who have to deal with real landowners and real local Councils, do so with an awareness of the real situation.

 

-Wlw.

Quite..

 

If the boot was on the other foot, and people were hiding things for other people to look for on land you owned, you'd be pretty pee'd off if they didn't ask first..

[+paul.blitz]

It would also help if the GC.com guidelines could be re-written (again) so as to be more complete, consistent and sensible.  At present, they are as full of loopholes as... as a thing with lots of loopholes in it.*

 

It's the defective guidelines, I believe, which occasionally place Reviewers in the sort of invidious position which they'd probably rather not be in.

Wildlifewriter:

 

The problem with the geocaching.com guidelines is that not only are they American, they have to try and be all things to all men (in many different countries!)

 

Are you aware of the GAGB guidelines? (I hope so!) They were written because of the "failings" of the GC.com guidelines, so that we could put a UK slant on things..... do you feel that THEY address your issues? If not, where do you feel they are "failing"?

 

The reason I ask is that our reviewers DO take the GAGB guidelines into account when reviewing caches (and have, on occasion, been know to point a cacher towards those guidelines).

 

I'm certainly aware that there ARE many UK cachers who are NOT aware of the GAGB guidelines, so maybe we - the GAGB that is - need to publicise the guidelines more.

 

And if you hadn't realised it, the GAGB guidelines have been accepted as-is by some landowners, whilst others have certainly used as a starting point for their own guidelines.... so obviously they are being of use.

 

The GAGB caching guidelines can be found here

 

Paul

[+wildlifewriter]

I'm certainly aware that there ARE many UK cachers who are NOT aware of the GAGB guidelines, so maybe we - the GAGB that is - need to publicise the guidelines more.

 

And if you hadn't realised it, the GAGB guidelines have been accepted as-is by some landowners, whilst others have certainly used as a starting point for their own guidelines.... so obviously they are being of use.

 

The GAGB caching guidelines can be found here

To answer your question briefly: yes, I am aware of the GAGB documents - and have used them when dealing with landowners in the past.

 

I suspect that you're correct in that many UK cachers don't know about them, so it's not a bad idea to mention them at this point.

 

As an example: if the guideline about dry-stone walls was better known, it might help to avoid caches being found in these circumstances...

 

 

-Wlw.

[Lactodorum]

Paul makes some very valid points and I would certainly confirm that when reviewing caches we are aware of the GAGB guidelines and DO take them into account.

 

Many is the time I have asked a cacher to change something which, while not expressley forbidden in the GC.COM guidelines, breaches something we take as "best practice" in the UK/Ireland.

 

I would also like to remind certain people of the forum RULE to be respectful of other forum users.

[+Flyfishermanbob]

Now then peeps, the trouble with guidelines is that they they can become "Tablets of Stone" .... and it doesn't mean they can't be reviewed.

 

At the risk of ranting... The access laws have changed , and the GAGB guidelines need to reflect this ..... maybe the time has come to review? .... and lets not listen to the barrack room lawyers ..... take some qualified advice.

 

OK I'll definitely get me coat this time

[+Flyfishermanbob]

As an example: if the guideline about dry-stone walls was better known, it might help to avoid caches being found in these circumstances...

 

 

-Wlw.

 

Well if we are being pedantic , the cache is actually in a pile of stones beside a dry stone wall...... may be a poor choice of location if the dry stone wall were ever repaired .... but it doesn't damage the actual wall and doesnt breech the current guidelines

 

ps in Scotland they are known as "dry stane dykes" .... but it seems its no longer politically correct to call them that ...

Edited April 30, 2005 by Flyfishermanbob

[+t.a.folk]

Are you aware of the GAGB guidelines? (I hope so!) They were written because of the "failings" of the GC.com guidelines, so that we could put a UK slant on things..... do you feel that THEY address your issues? If not, where do you feel they are "failing"?

 

Is it a Requirement for cache placers and cache seekers to comply with G.A.G.B.Guidelines ?

[+wildlifewriter]

Well if we are being pedantic , the cache is actually in a pile of stones beside a dry stone wall...... may be a poor choice of location if the dry stone wall were ever repaired .... but it doesn't damage the actual wall and doesnt breech the current guidelines 

No, Rab...

 

The cache box was IN the wall, near the base among some loose stones.

 

Then various cachers loosened other stones, while searching for it...

 

Then this part of the wall fell down.

 

-Wlw.

(PS: we name them "dykes" here tae, as ye well ken.)

Edited April 30, 2005 by wildlifewriter

[+Flyfishermanbob]

Well if we are being pedantic , the cache is actually in a pile of stones beside a dry stone wall...... may be a poor choice of location if the dry stone wall were ever repaired .... but it doesn't damage the actual wall and doesnt breech the current guidelines 

No, Rab...

 

The cache box was IN the wall, near the base among some loose stones.

 

Then various cachers loosened other stones, while searching for it...

 

Then this part of the wall fell down.

 

-Wlw.

(PS: we name them "dykes" here tae, as ye well ken.)

 

I stand corrected WLW, that is indeed criminal.

 

.... thought a lot of "drystane dykes" are no longer working dykes ..... , just the skeleton of what was a dyke .... (and they are too expensive to repair)

[+wildlifewriter]

I stand corrected WLW, that is indeed criminal.

Ill-considered perhaps, rather than criminal. Oh and - guess what?

 

The wall surrounds a cemetery....

[nobby.nobbs]

surely it's better to have a landowners permission and not just rely on "i've a right to walk here"

 

for a start access and rights of way are just that not a right to stop or have a picnic. and with rights come responsibilities. and respect for landowners who have to maintain these places.

 

more and more people are becoming aware of the sport. how would you feel if you had a look online and discovered a cache on your land placed without your knowledge? asssuming you weren't a cacher? the chances are they'd go and find it and remove it. then in doesn't matter who's morally right or wrong the cache has gone for good. then regular checks will let you know of any new ones with the same end result. a simple conversation to begin with could have a convert and a happy landowner with more secure caches.

 

it's called being polite.

[+dino-irl]

with rights come responsibilities. and respect for landowners who have to maintain these places.....

 

.......it's called being polite.

And that's what everything comes down to. Respect and manners or the lack thereof. Treat others as you would expect them to treat you isn't a bad creed to live by!

[Alan White]

I agree entirely with naffita.

 

When out caching I'm far more concerned about ending up on what is obviously private land on which I'm not wanted (as has been the case with a number of caches I've visited recently [1]) than I am about caches placed on public (i.e our) land.

 

Those who want to turn the hobby into an Olympic sport should consider whether the result is something that would be as enjoyable as it is today.

 

[1] In case he's readiing, that's not a dig at Simply Paul, because he disabled the cache as soon as I expressed concern.

[+t.a.folk]

deleted posting

Edited May 1, 2005 by t.a.folk

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Those who want to turn the hobby into an Olympic sport should consider whether the result is something that would be as enjoyable as it is today.

 

It's nothing to do with making caching a Olympic sport as you put it, but more of a case of working for permission on an area by area basis with landowners rather than a blanket ban as has recently happened. Which makes sure that geocaching will not be as enjoyable tomorrow as it is today!

 

When out caching I'm far more concerned about ending up on what is obviously private land on which I'm not wanted (as has been the case with a number of caches I've visited recently [1]) than I am about caches placed on public (i.e our) land.

 

Have you ever talked to anyone responsible for the management of public land, and heard their side of things? I have and they were of the opinion that caches still need permission! And when it comes to areas which are under English Nature or CCW (Wales) or even English Heritage or CADW, they were of the opinion that caches placed without permission could be breaking the law even though they are "Public owned" (i.e ours). And even with the coming of Open Access, geocaching is not listed as one of the permitted hobbys.

 

And a hypothetical question for you. A manager of public land finds out that there is 3 or 4 caches on land that he is responsible for and says ok I'll let them go, but after checking out the listing sites finds out that there is in fact 25 to 30 caches on the land. What do you thing that he/she would do, and what affect would this have on the enjoyment of caching in the area? And to give you a example think New Forest!

 

Dave

[+welch]

OK folks we have the GAGB landowners database

We have lots of approvals

We have some bans.

What do we need to do to (as only forum readers are aware of these issues)

1

Make the sport official (government approval?)

2

Get more approvals (so that peer pressure can be used)

3

Make cachers more aware of these issues of permision and banning (would copying the BBWOT email as a note to each cache we visit be appropriate?)

4

Who are the major landowners we should be talking to (british waterways springs to mind)

5

Get more CITO events (how many have there ever been in the UK i only know of two)

6

A.O.B.

Are you suggesting that the first thing to be done should be be getting government approval??

[markandlynn]

public (i.e our) land.

 

Those who want to turn the hobby into an Olympic sport should consider whether the result is something that would be as enjoyable as it is today.

 

As it is our land can i go and put my old sofa on it ? No

maybe my old toaster ? No

well what about my old tupperware boxes then ?

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Are you suggesting that the first thing to be done should be be getting government approval??

 

Its already happening by the back door every time a cacher deals with English Nature or English Heritage or the Welsh equvalents CCW and CADW and also the Forestry Commision their dealing with a goverment (Assembly) department

 

Dave

[+welch]

Are you suggesting that the first thing to be done should be be getting government approval??

 

Its already happening by the back door every time a cacher deals with English Nature or English Heritage or the Welsh equvalents CCW and CADW and also the Forestry Commision their dealing with a goverment (Assembly) department

 

Dave

I guess I don't see that as quite the same thing.

Not I would think it something that shouldn't or will not in time, be done, but asking for government regs right now on something that relatively few know of or take part in (or understand), may end up with odd rules.

[+BedlingtonDuo]

We would dearly love to place caches and have some ideas but having been turned down 2 times out of 2 we are leaving it a while.