Jump to content

Roundabouts


Recommended Posts

Me and another cacher want to place a cache on a roundabout.

 

The reviewer responded with "Unfortunately I'm unable to publish the cache in the current location as it is placed on a roundabout that has no public footpath/access.

 

The UK reviewers have discussed such placements and have agreed that no caches will be published on a roundabout unless there is a footpath crossing it."

 

So where is it written in the placement guidelines?

 

I've looked at the placement guidelines, and the regional geocaching policies wiki.

 

There is not one mention of roundabouts let alone specific legislation that they must have a foot path crossing said roundabout.

 

This is especially annoying as I know of another cache on a roundabout that does not have a footpath crossing it.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4ETC1_round-and-round-the-supermarket

 

Can anyone please send me a link to this rule which doesn't appear to appear in the official rules?

Edited by Paxo Parrot
Link to comment

They have some wording that allows them to do so. One is basically saying that because a hide was or was not approved in the past has no effect on the decision to approve or not approve a similar cache in the future. They have obviously made that decision not to allow caches in those locations. Perhaps the cache you found was placed before they made that choice. Aside from grandfathering, it's just not practical. They don't have the resources to go and re-review every single cache when a change is made.

 

Also thin the guidelines it says they can decline a cache based on proximity to certain places, including but not limited to.

 

I would say it's not in the rules because in North America, traffic circles aren't as common as they are in the UK. There's probably more in a single UK city than there is in the whole province of Alberta.

 

Then there's the fact that they may have been asked by some authority not to allow caches in those locations. In which case it doesn't have to be in guidelines.

 

Also we can't really help you. Doesn't matter our opinion, or the guidelines. We aren't the ones who approve the caches (unless your reviewer happens to be active here.) So why not try working with the reviewer? Actually I do have an idea. Try getting explicit permission, and I'm sure it would greatly help your case.

Link to comment

So, what you're saying. Is we have a group of people (the reviewers) who have the right to add or change the rules of the game without publishing these additions or changes, and we the players are expected to know this information off the top of our heads and retroactively abide by it.

 

As to your other comment, I wrote to the local council for permission to place a specific cache five years ago. I am still waiting for a reply.

 

If as the guidelines say, permission must be gained to place a cache, every single geocache in the county must be placed illegally. I mean, I actually do have relatives who sit on the local council, and if I can't get official permission to place a cache, how has everyone else managed to do so?

 

All I want is a link to the FULL RULES for placing a cache, including all the "special" rules that are made up by the reviewers because they've had a bad day, because I am fed up to the back teeth with trying to place a cache, and then being picked up on something which is NOT in the OFFICIAL rules.

 

If it IS NOT written down in the OFFICIAL rules, it IS NOT an OFFICIAL rule. Simple.

Link to comment

So, what you're saying. Is we have a group of people (the reviewers) who have the right to add or change the rules of the game without publishing these additions or changes, and we the players are expected to know this information off the top of our heads and retroactively abide by it.

They aren't changing the rules, they're interpreting the rules. In this case, "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations." From what the reviewer said, they have debated it carefully and conscientiously, and they've decided that a roundabout without official foot access is an inappropriate location. I have no idea what criteria they considered, but my guess would be that they decided it would likely be dangerous, and, anyway, they wouldn't be able to judge remotely whether it was dangerous or not, and even if it wasn't dangerous for your one roundabout, it might encourage people to think roundabouts in general were good places to hide caches without considering whether they'd be dangerous.

 

In other words, they most likely did it because they were worried people might get hurt. I can promise you they didn't do it because they wanted to spoil your cache. I know you're disappointed, but it isn't really that big of a deal in the scheme of things, so you might want to let it go.

Link to comment

.....If it IS NOT written down in the OFFICIAL rules, it IS NOT an OFFICIAL rule. Simple.

 

So then let's call it an unofficial rule. Still doesn't change anything. And this is a privately owned company, they can do as they please. I don't have a problem with these rules. I've had caches denied before, even one denied for similar reasons, in a similar location. If you want everything explicitly laid out, it's not going to happen. There's too many different things that they'd never think of. There's no rules against placing a cache in the core of a nuclear power plant, or on the side of a mountain and you can't use climbing g gear to retrieve the cache. There's no specific rule against placing a cache under a bridge where you have to climb over, then under and chance a 100 foot fall. You would understand if that was not allowed (even though it would be your error if you fell) but you're complaining about a cache getting denied because the reviewer is concerned about the date of the people finding it. Someone might not be paying attention and hit the cacher no matter how carefull the cacher is.

 

If the reviewers are anything like me at work, complaining will only make them not want to help you. They're just concerned for cacher safety. If you still can't get over it, go use a different geocaching website.

Edited by T.D.M.22
Link to comment

From the Guidelines (just because it's worth repeating):

 

All local laws and documented land management policies apply.

 

This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access.

 

Just for the record, I do the same as they do in the UK. Whenever I see or it's suggested, that a cache is in a traffic control area like a roundabout, the first thing I do is zoom in on the map to see if there is a crosswalk or some other indication that pedestrians are allowed there. If not, I ask that the cache be moved to an area where cachers don't have to play dodge-car.

Link to comment

The subject of Roundabouts has been discussed on the UK Reviewers Facebook page on several occasions recently and without specific pedestrian access it is a 'no' regarding placement. I appreciate that if you don't use Facebook then this is of no help and you are purely reliant on the wiki which tends to just use general terms as quoted above without specific mention of Roundabouts. Maybe roundabouts should be specifically mentioned but then, as soon as you start creating a specific list, then the next disgruntled CO starts to quote that it isn't on the list. My advice would be that if you are placing any cache that might have the slightest controversial placement, access etc then contact your local reviewer first and chat it through with them. They really are friendly and will provide guidance.

Link to comment

You also need to throw into this debate the fact that Highways England, who own much of the road infrastructure in the UK has specifically said that they will not allow geocaches on any of the property that they own or manage, so even if the reviewers were inclined to allow your cache they would most likely require specific permission from the landowner to demonstrate that it isn't Highways England's.

 

Highlighting the fact that a cache has previously been published on a roundabout isn't going to strengthen your case, the most likely outcome will be that if any reviewer sees the link in this post then they will have that one archived.

 

I think this one comes firmly under the "otherwise inappropriate locations" quote that dprovan posted above, so the best you can do is look for somewhere else.

Link to comment

There are many locations where caches are either not allowed at all or that require proof you have permission. The main locations are listed in the UK Geocaching Policies Wiki. I should have added roundabouts to the list when we discussed it but I simply forgot so my apologies for that. The Wiki is linked to under the signature of all the UK reviewing team when they either write a reviewer note on a cache or email you. I've now edited the Wiki page.

Link to comment

There's also the safety aspect to consider. On a roundabout with pedestrian access across it, there's often a footpath or some other similar crossing point available on the roadside.

 

Where this is not the case, then any pedestrian takes a risk in crossing onto the roundabout. Now would the CO like to be held responsible if said pedestrian were to be injured in attempting to retrieve their 'trinket' just to gain a brownie point?

 

Personally, I'd rather play safe than sorry and if there is no valid path across a roundabout (and I don't consider worn-away grass as a valid designated path either), I wouldn't even consider placing a cache in that location, even if it was the only site in the locality where you get outstanding views of the local countryside etc.

Link to comment

There's also the safety aspect to consider. On a roundabout with pedestrian access across it, there's often a footpath or some other similar crossing point available on the roadside.

 

Where this is not the case, then any pedestrian takes a risk in crossing onto the roundabout. Now would the CO like to be held responsible if said pedestrian were to be injured in attempting to retrieve their 'trinket' just to gain a brownie point?

 

Personally, I'd rather play safe than sorry and if there is no valid path across a roundabout (and I don't consider worn-away grass as a valid designated path either), I wouldn't even consider placing a cache in that location, even if it was the only site in the locality where you get outstanding views of the local countryside etc.

Slightly off topic, but an attempt to clarify

 

Reasonable cacher safety is an important consideration:

 

People undertake geocaching at their own risk, cache owners are not held morally or legally responsible for "said pedestrians" retrieving their caches, otherwise there would not be geocaching or any caches...

 

Said pedestrian could easily be injured, whether there was a crosswalk or not, a cache or not, or they are going to the store rather than a cache ...

 

In this case it seems reasonable to restrict caches to roundabouts with pedestrian access.

Link to comment

So, what you're saying. Is we have a group of people (the reviewers) who have the right to add or change the rules of the game without publishing these additions or changes, and we the players are expected to know this information off the top of our heads and retroactively abide by it.

 

 

We have a group of reviewers who are obliged to enforce global guidelines; which are high level and include statements such as "otherwise inappropriate".

The UK reviewers work together, and in some cases they have decided it is useful to agree specific UK details, and roundabouts is one. I see these as "UK reviewers local interpretation" rather than new rules. You have seen that several different US reviewers would do the same, though there isn't a US specific local guideline that specifically states "roundabouts" (they wouldn't call them that anyway!).

 

And yes, there are caches already hidden in the UK on roundabouts.

 

It would be nice if the official guidelines document could link to the country specific documents, where they exist. It would just need a section saying "In a number of countries, local guidelines are maintained by the local reviewers. If your country is listed, please consult these guidelines".

Link to comment

1. I wouldn't call this a "local guideline." Add me to the list of Community Volunteer Reviewers from outside the UK who are posting to confirm that we handle the roundabouts issue in the same way. (Roundabouts are becoming more and more popular in the USA, both for new construction and for re-engineering of existing busy intersections.)

 

2. Even the cache cited in the OP as "precedent" for being in a roundabout was very carefully questioned before it was published. (I have the benefit of being able to see the archived reviewer notes, which were thorough.)

 

3. Regarding "local guidelines", most of these fall under the umbrella of permission and the Reviewers' comfort level when asking themselves "is it reasonable to assume that permission was granted for this cache placement?" Please note the following statement, which is found at the very very top of the Introduction to the Listing Guidelines:

 

Prior to placing and submitting any and all geocaches, please read the following guidelines and the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki so that your geocache can be published promptly. It is important for your geocache to comply with Geocaching.com’s published guidelines and the Geocaching Policies that apply to your region. If your geocache does not adhere to all of our guidelines and applicable regional policies, it may be placed on hold, temporarily disabled or permanently archived.
Link to comment

Now that the information I wanted has been published, though after the fact, I'm happy.

 

What I would strongly suggest, in future, that the guidelines page be updated to make it far easier to find the information required.

 

One set of vague policies with a not very clear link to the regional specific details that may or may not be updated by someone when they remember or are pushed to update it is a little unprofessional.

 

I understand that the reviewers are volunteers and can only help out when they can, but what do Groundspeak do exactly? They supply a website that it seems the public have to update themselves, for free, while Groundspeak collect the money?

 

Makes sense.

Link to comment

 

Prior to placing and submitting any and all geocaches, please read the following guidelines and the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki so that your geocache can be published promptly. It is important for your geocache to comply with Geocaching.com’s published guidelines and the Geocaching Policies that apply to your region. If your geocache does not adhere to all of our guidelines and applicable regional policies, it may be placed on hold, temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

 

Thanks, so the link I was asking for is already there!

Link to comment

Now that the information I wanted has been published, though after the fact, I'm happy.

 

What I would strongly suggest, in future, that the guidelines page be updated to make it far easier to find the information required.

 

One set of vague policies with a not very clear link to the regional specific details that may or may not be updated by someone when they remember or are pushed to update it is a little unprofessional.

 

I understand that the reviewers are volunteers and can only help out when they can, but what do Groundspeak do exactly? They supply a website that it seems the public have to update themselves, for free, while Groundspeak collect the money?

 

Makes sense.

Did you obtain permission from the land manager responsible for the roundabout? If you did, tell your reviewer this and your cache can likely be published.

 

If express permission isn't in place, that is already covered in the guidelines. Anything recently "published" or "updated" on this subject is by way of clarification and expansion. It is not "unprofessional" for a reviewer to question "middle of a roundabout" caches on the basis of permission. It would be unprofessional for a reviewer to assume that permission was granted.

Link to comment

Guidelines? Stupidity?

Go send your child to get that cache across a road that has no crossing.

Use your loaf! <_<

 

You think crossing a road is a bad idea? Okay, you get your kid to climb a 10+ meter tree or go potholing in abandoned structures miles from help to get a 35mm container. That's stupid. But, it seems perfectly fine under the guidelines.

 

Intelligence works both ways, genius. We marked it as high terrain and no kids or wheelchairs.

 

Did you obtain permission from the land manager responsible for the roundabout? If you did, tell your reviewer this and your cache can likely be published.

 

If you actually read the whole thread, and not just cherry pick the highlights, you'd have noticed that I already said I've officially requested permission to place caches over 5 years ago. I'm still waiting.

 

If I cannot get official permission to place a cache from the council, how exactly has everyone else?

Link to comment

 

If you actually read the whole thread, and not just cherry pick the highlights, you'd have noticed that I already said I've officially requested permission to place caches over 5 years ago. I'm still waiting.

 

If I cannot get official permission to place a cache from the council, how exactly has everyone else?

 

Permission is a bit of a can of worms. But putting it simply, if the reviewer has no concerns about the placement (not in a roundabout,not near a school, not in an SSSI, etc) and it meets all guidelines, they will generally publish it assuming you have adequate permission.

 

Some submissions they may reject regardless of permission, if it violates guidelines.

 

Then some they may say allow, only if you can show evidence of permission.

 

Some caches placed near a road on council land will have explicit permission. Some councils have blanket policies on geocaching. Some won't have permission.

Link to comment

Me and another cacher want to place a cache on a roundabout.

 

The reviewer responded with "Unfortunately I'm unable to publish the cache in the current location as it is placed on a roundabout that has no public footpath/access.

 

The UK reviewers have discussed such placements and have agreed that no caches will be published on a roundabout unless there is a footpath crossing it."

 

So where is it written in the placement guidelines?

 

I've looked at the placement guidelines, and the regional geocaching policies wiki.

 

There is not one mention of roundabouts let alone specific legislation that they must have a foot path crossing said roundabout.

 

This is especially annoying as I know of another cache on a roundabout that does not have a footpath crossing it.

 

https://www.geocachi...the-supermarket

 

Can anyone please send me a link to this rule which doesn't appear to appear in the official rules?

 

I had a cache in this sort of location declined as well. I recall the reason given was as it would be 'distracting to drivers'.

Edited by Yorkshire Yellow
Link to comment

There are many locations where caches are either not allowed at all or that require proof you have permission. The main locations are listed in the UK Geocaching Policies Wiki. I should have added roundabouts to the list when we discussed it but I simply forgot so my apologies for that. The Wiki is linked to under the signature of all the UK reviewing team when they either write a reviewer note on a cache or email you. I've now edited the Wiki page.

 

Had a read through that WIKI page and spotted this - my bold

 

Geocachers may feel uncomfortable searching for a cache near children or parents with children. For this reason caches will not be allowed on play equipment or within or close to playgrounds. Nor will caches be allowed on school property, boundaries or within site of the school buildings or recreation areas.

 

Is this a typo?

 

within the site of school buildings or recreation areas or within sight of them?

Link to comment

There are many locations where caches are either not allowed at all or that require proof you have permission. The main locations are listed in the UK Geocaching Policies Wiki. I should have added roundabouts to the list when we discussed it but I simply forgot so my apologies for that. The Wiki is linked to under the signature of all the UK reviewing team when they either write a reviewer note on a cache or email you. I've now edited the Wiki page.

 

Had a read through that WIKI page and spotted this - my bold

 

Geocachers may feel uncomfortable searching for a cache near children or parents with children. For this reason caches will not be allowed on play equipment or within or close to playgrounds. Nor will caches be allowed on school property, boundaries or within site of the school buildings or recreation areas.

 

Is this a typo?

 

within the site of school buildings or recreation areas or within sight of them?

 

Well that yielded a massive response - not! :unsure:

Link to comment

Had a read through that WIKI page and spotted this - my bold

 

Geocachers may feel uncomfortable searching for a cache near children or parents with children. For this reason caches will not be allowed on play equipment or within or close to playgrounds. Nor will caches be allowed on school property, boundaries or within site of the school buildings or recreation areas.

 

Is this a typo?

 

within the site of school buildings or recreation areas or within sight of them?

Well that yielded a massive response - not! :unsure:

Obviously it's a typo since, as you point out, it doesn't make sense either way as written. Given the reference to being uncomfortable, I think "within sight" must have been what was intended. Besides, one wouldn't generally call a recreational area a site.

 

I assume no one responded to you because we all thought the question was rhetorical.

Link to comment

Had a read through that WIKI page and spotted this - my bold

 

Geocachers may feel uncomfortable searching for a cache near children or parents with children. For this reason caches will not be allowed on play equipment or within or close to playgrounds. Nor will caches be allowed on school property, boundaries or within site of the school buildings or recreation areas.

 

Is this a typo?

 

within the site of school buildings or recreation areas or within sight of them?

Well that yielded a massive response - not! :unsure:

Obviously it's a typo since, as you point out, it doesn't make sense either way as written. Given the reference to being uncomfortable, I think "within sight" must have been what was intended. Besides, one wouldn't generally call a recreational area a site.

 

I assume no one responded to you because we all thought the question was rhetorical.

 

No - it wasn't a rehtorical question - I was hoping someone would realise that it needs fixing and do something about it - although I grant you I should probably have quoted the post by the reviewer graculus which linked to the WIKI article - but I mistakenly assumed that his contribution to the thread was an indicator of his continued interest.

Link to comment

Thanks for spoting the eror. Thatl'l teech me to properly prof reed in futere.

 

Thangs furr tat - smush betar noo :D

 

So now we have:

 

Geocachers may feel uncomfortable searching for a cache near children or parents with children. For this reason caches will not be allowed on play equipment or within or close to playgrounds. Nor will caches be allowed on school property, boundaries or within sight of the school buildings or recreation areas.

 

... as a description of a location where caches should not be allowed, yes?

 

So how would that align with, say, a cache at the side of a short footpath with zero cover, zero logical reason to loiter there, with a kids playground clearly in the sight-line of GZ and with a steady stream of parents and young children back and forth down the path on their way to and from said playground? Does that sound like a location where a cache should be allowed?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...