Cave Booking Etiquette (eg. Lost Johns')

[Steve Clark]

I've only been caving for a couple of years or so and mostly get out with the Fylde MC. We've been having a bit of a revival recently and have done a respectable number of trips in the last 12 months (30-ish) and have about of dozen different folks getting out at various times.

Whilst the FMC have a long history of club caving in the Dales, caving has never been our primary activity. We are not a BCA or CNCC club* and prior to the new online booking/permit system being implemented it would be fair to say we haven't archived a large file full of permit paperwork from the last few decades. More recently things are much improved and we do try to get permits for what we are doing and had no issues with it. System is simple and great.

My question is about the etiquette for 'booking' large cave systems (eg. Lost Johns') on, say a Saturday in winter season if we are only a small group and may just be doing Centipede to the top of Battleaxe for example. Are we out of order and blocking a whole cave to a large club by doing this? Is this stopping folks planning/doing exchanges with other pots? We'd obviously have no issue with other folks/clubs using the other routes in the system and leap-frogging us with a bit of double-rigging but there seems to be no easy way to advertise or coordinate this. Are bigger clubs booking caves well in advance for larger trips? Should we just leave booking this kind of thing for late on the Friday or on the day?

Looking forward over the next couple of months, it looks like Lost Johns' is currently booked for about 1/4 of weekend days.

Similar example if we we were to just go to Glasfurd's in Gavel. Book the whole pot out for the day?

For a simple Short Drop to Gavel trip exchange, we've just booked Short Drop rather than both, since another club could easily access Gavel anyway. Is this reasonable?

*(We do have BMC 3rd party liability insurance for caving on 'club organised trips only')

 

[langcliffe]

I am sure that the CNCC will have a view on this, but here is my tuppence worth.

I tend to go caving in a very small group, usually a couple and four at the most, and I would always book Lost Johns' Cave if we were going down it. Similarly, I would book Gavel, even if only going so far as Glasfurd's Chamber. However, if we were doing a pull through from Death's Head to Notts II, I would NOT books Notts II or Lost Johns' Cave as surplus rigging on pitches would not be an issue. Having said that, we once met some people in the Notts II stream passage who were very cross that we had pulled-through Voldermort, because they had The Iron Kiln booked!

I have actually booked a cave when on the fell, after we had been forced to change our plans at the last minute.

 

[CNCC]

Hi Steve

Great to hear from a club having such a great caving revival!

Interesting post, and we are sure it will create some varied perspectives.

The CNCC Online Booking system was created as a compromise to landowners, initially on Ingleborough and then Leck and Casterton Fells as a replacement to the old permit systems. As these caves lie on Access Land, of course, no permission or booking is mandatory. We have no intention of telling caver that the absolutely must use the system. However, use of the booking system is urged as it shows respect to those landowners who wished for it, and who still have the final say on digging projects. The booking system was a simple way to maintain respect from, and relations with, these landowners, at no real perceived inconvenience to cavers.

The booking system has been embraced by many cavers (939 registered users as of today). It would be interesting to know what proportion of people caving on Ingleborough/Leck/Casterton use the system, and of those doing so what their primary influences are for doing so.

Some interesting current stats on booking system users…

As well as being courteous to the landowner, we suspect that most groups who use the system do so to avoid congestion with other groups. It also has conservation benefits in some potholes, such as the recently discovered F’ing Hopeless Pot.

Rather to our shock, we have received several requests to implement the booking system as an optional tool for caves elsewhere in our region which have never had historic access restrictions. Don’t worry… this is not something we are considering, but it took us by surprise!

The landowners wished for some limits to numbers, but otherwise placed no conditions on the specifics of the booking system. Factors such as how many bookings should be allowed per pothole per day was left to our best judgement. To keep things simple, we went one booking per entrance per day, which has since been extended to two bookings per day for non-SRT entrances including Notts II (Committee Pot), Wretched Rabbit, County Pot, plus Lancaster Hole (where there is only one pitch to negotiate and demand prior to the Booking System implementation clearly demonstrated a need for more than one booking per day to accommodate demand).

We felt that this strategy should provide ample access while still providing some limits as per the Estate’s wishes.

You raise an interesting question about caves with multiple routes, and the option to share bookings. Clearly many single-entrance, single booking, multi-route potholes can accommodate more than one group, particularly if they are staggered on their timings. Conversely, some potholes have multiple entrances which can be booked separately, but then share pitches (for example, Flood Entrance and Flood via Wades, or Bar Pot and Small Mammal), so congestion can still happen.

Ultimately, the booking system needed to integrate seamlessly with our cave database, and the booking by cave entrance approach was the simplest way to make this work, even if it did result in a few contradictory situations such as the one above.

This is something we have already given some thought to. We explored the option of allowing a booked group to consent to being contacted by others to perhaps discuss cave-sharing (arranging exchanges, staggering arrival times, or planning different routes), or to allow groups making a booking to include some information that is displayed (anonymously) to other users.

However, this introduced even more complexity and potential GDPR issues if not done correctly. Our webmaster is awesome, but this would be a very time-consuming addition to implement, and we felt we risked over-engineering what was meant to be a very simple system. The more complex you make any online system the more chances of things going wrong, or people not using it.

However, if there is strong feeling that additional functionalities would be desirable, we can rethink.

We would suggest that a benefit of the booking system is that you can specifically see which caves are NOT booked as well as which caves ARE booked on any given day (you can search for availability by date, or by cave entrance). Therefore, on those dates where Lost Johns’ Cave is booked, you can easily see which others are not, and perhaps make plans to fit with current availability.

The great thing about our region is that there are plenty of great caves to go around.

Booking well in advance, or just browsing for what is available on the night before your trip are both equally valid options and you shouldn’t find yourself short on options.

Larger clubs often publish their meets lists well in advance, so we do see bookings being made for an entire year worth of meets from several users. The following graph showing all bookings (by date the booking was for) does suggest that most users book more last-minute, judging by the very sudden drop-off in bookings after the present date:

As you mention, for Short Drop to Gavel (without descending the lower Gavel pitches), just a single booking of Short Drop could seem sensible, to avoid blocking the opportunity for another group to descend the normal route of Gavel. Obviously, this could result in two groups meeting at the Gavel entrance but the inconvenience to either would be minimal. Likewise, if pulling-through down Lost Johns’ to exit at Notts II, some people might only make a Lost Johns’ booking as the likelihood of causing issues for anyone else in Notts II is minimal.

Common sense should be used, and there is often no right or wrong answer in these situations.

We do urge acceptance that, if you encounter another group in one of your ‘booked’ caves, that they may have used common sense, or had to change their plans last minute without the ability to change their booking (not all networks have good signal around our region). Alternatively, they may simply not have used the booking system, use of which is encouraged but not mandatory. Or the group may simply have forgotten, or had a mix-up, each person assuming the other had made the booking. So please be friendly… we’re all part of the same lovely community.

We welcome opinions on this. The online booking system is a tool that should primarily work for cavers, so if there is a strong feeling that it needs to be changed, we are keen to listen.

Whoops, that reply went on a little longer than we expected! Our Communications Officer is bored tonight

 

[Steve Clark]

Thanks for the detailed response. Makes a lot of sense.

The idea of being able to leave a public note with the booking did jump out to me as an idea, but the more you think about it the more complicated it gets. Even if you left a note saying, say, 'morning trip, 3 people, centipede to dome junction only', you'd still have the situation where two other groups could then then assume they have the whole cave free in the afternoon, with no means of booking/confirming it. Then the whole thing becomes too complex to implement for something that doesn't appear to actually be a major problem.

I think my main question is more about manners and expectation - are we likely to ruin someone's big club plan by booking a Saturday trip for 3 people in Lost Johns', say a week in advance?

As a climber, the concept of 'booking' any route for your sole use for a day is totally alien. A pair of climbers hogging/blocking a popular route (or effectively an entire crag in the sense of Lost John's) in the Lakes on a busy weekend would be totally out-of-order.

 

[topcat]

As a long term climber I take your point. But it is not the same, not at all.

Sharing an SRT pitch is more like two lead climbers clipping the same hangers on the same sports climb........

If a climber finds the preferred route taken their lead rack can be used on another climb very easily. Not so a tackle sack packed for a specific cave.

And it is not just the SRT. Many caves have long , tight, technical crawls. Meeting cavers from another group face to face with no room to pass is not what anyone wants in their day.

 

[Alex]

I don't think it's really a problem as the big club trips with lots of people you are worried about blocking are normally sorted out ages in advance well before you doing it just a week or less before going down there. Big clubs always seem to arrange there big meets in advance like this as it's the only way they can organise the herd of cats as it were. It's first come first served really.

However, if it is a problem then maybe one idea rather than a note that is suggested just an optional field to say what club, so they can contact you if needed, worked for me down one of the caves above. I booked, someone worked out who it was who booked (prob because I posted something on here) and then we were able arrange our visit to not get in each others way. We went in the morning the others came down a few hours afterwards in the afternoon and we did not get in each other's way.

 

[hannahb]

"are we likely to ruin someone's big club plan by booking a Saturday trip for 3 people in Lost Johns', say a week in advance?"

In my opinion, no. It's not a problem at all.

 

[caving_fox]

As far as I think of it, it's basically first come first booked. Party size/destination irrelevant. You don't have greater/lesser 'rights' just because you're doing an 'easier' or harder trip. If it's available then book it and go.

But please - as soon as you know the trip isn't on, do cancel the booking especially for popular locations.

 

[JasonC]

"are we likely to ruin someone's big club plan by booking a Saturday trip for 3 people in Lost Johns', say a week in advance?"

In my opinion, no. It's not a problem at all.

Agreed. Having once booked Lost Johns for an evening trip, we met a guy who was planning a solo trip to the same cave (obviously, he hadn't booked). He offered to go elsewhere, but we said he could come with us and use our rigging, which we did - saved him using his rope, and we enjoyed some new company.
So I'm sure you won't ruin anybody's trip - these things can always be sorted with common sense and consideration on both sides. I find these usually apply (but maybe not always, as Langcliffe has pointed out!)

 

[Pitlamp]

That was clearly a good encounter, with an obviously friendly and sensible outcome. This approach works well with small groups of cavers; over the years I've met so many great folk and beguun friensdhips in exactly this sort of way.

But . . . it doesn't work so well for people who have agreed to be meet leaders for our larger clubs, which may have very well attended meets. They have at least a degree of responsibility to make sure pitches are safely rigged, so they'll perhaps have spent a long time preparing all the ropes and other accessories. As the meet is on the annual meets card they'll probably have booked it months earlier. They turn up on the day, with a large and eager group, only to find to find the first pitch already rigged. What should they do - derig existing ropes to rig their own (causing hassle, unnecessary delays and perhaps a spoiled meet)? Rig over them, causing difficulty for everyone involved?Or should they take responsibility for allowing a club meet to progress on ropes with an unknown history and age, rigged by a person with unknown skill levels, an unknown period of time in the past (during which floods or rockfalls may have caused damage which isn't obvious)? I don't know the answer but perhaps readers can see the point?

I only raise this because the booking system is as much for the caving community's benefit as to keep landowners happy. I wonder why that solo caver hadn't made a booking? The folk in CNCC have done so much work to set this up for us and it's ridiculously simple to use. (I'm the original "analogue man" and even I find it easy.)

I do a fair amount of solo caving (often running tanks in and out of popular systems). I always try to make a CNCC booking and if the place is already booked I'll usually be able just to pick a different day. On occasions I've managed to identify who has the booking, which has allowed me to ask if it's OK to join them; almost always I've been made welcome. If it's clearly an inconvenience to them then I'll happily abandon my plans that day and go somewhere else.

A while ago I asked the CNCC officer concerned whether clubs that have bookings might be made identifiable in some way on the website, to help others liaise if need be. The answer was that privacy legislation unfortunately rules this out. (Remember that some are individuals - would you want potential burglars to know when you're likely to be away from home?). It's a shame but this is the world we live in.

I think Jason C was generally advocating the use of common sense above, which I can't argue with. I guess it applies to everybody involved though.

 

[afraidofthedank]

Having bumped into plenty of groups who have not booked, on days where we have booked, it's never been a problem. As CNCC state, the system is primarily to keep the landowners happy, not to deconflict groups of cavers.

I'd probably avoid a cave if it was booked but then again, if I really wanted to do it...then i'd just go do it, and hope to be able to stay out of their way as much as possible. I'd expect others to try and do the same, but I don't think anyone should be expecting exclusive use of a cave system on the basis of booking on the CNCC website - especially since they are on access land.

 

[Pitlamp]

Good for you for using the booking system.
But your post above doesn't really address the point made in the 2nd paragraph above.

Please be assured though that I do concur with the common sense approach, which in many cases provides a harmonious solution.

 

[Cavematt]

Afraidofthedank is right. The caves are on access land, so everyone has a right under CRoW to be there (at least in the eyes of BCA/CNCC). Having a booking gives you no particular rights over others. It's just a matter of whether you value the booking system for its courtesy, both to the landowner or other cavers.

I personally use the booking system because CNCC have politely asked us to out of landowner courtesy, and I'm happy to support our regional council especially when it is negligible inconvenience. But also because I really value the secondary benefit of avoiding congestion.

Caving_Fox makes an excellent point that your group size or intended location is irrelevant.

If you make a booking for just yourself and a mate to do Lost Johns' and then a large club then want to book it for a dozen members to do an epic exchange, then as far as I'm concerned they should have planned and booked it earlier. Not to mention the fact that the system will allow them to look to see what other caves ARE free, and make alternative plans really easily.

In my experience, there are very few days when all the major pots/exchanges on Leck Fell are booked up. There is nearly always availability.

I have noticed that since the booking system was introduced, I have encountered far fewer other groups in the SRT caves I have done on Leck Fell, despite the car parks appearing to be full of cars that show signs of belonging to cavers (mud, rust, clothes or detritus on back seat). Has the booking system helped all of those cavers to spread out? Or is this just coincidental?

The worst possible etiquette you could have would be to make multiple bookings in the interests of keeping your options open, thus knowing you will not use at least one of them, or failing to cancel a booking when knowing days in advance you won't be using it. Lots of people make last-minute bookings, so even cancelling a day ahead can open up availability for someone else.

 

[Pitlamp]

Matt; you wrote: It's just a matter of whether you value the booking system for its courtesy, both to the landowner or other cavers.

I think that's exactly the point. I also agree that there should be no priority based on group size.

You also wrote: If you make a booking for just yourself and a mate to do Lost Johns' and then a large club then want to book it for a dozen members to do an epic exchange, then as far as I'm concerned they should have planned and booked it earlier.

I agree - but that wasn't the scenario I alluded to; it was the other way around.

 

[JasonC]

I think Jason C was generally advocating the use of common sense above, which I can't argue with. I guess it applies to everybody involved though.

I might not have been clear that I was encouraging the OP to book whatever trips he wanted, and not worry about depriving a big club of an opportunity, rather then just turning up and hoping for the best. I agree that turning up to a cave that been booked by others before they had arrived would be (at least) bad manners. But waiting til they came and having a polite conversation on options should be fine.

 

[Pitlamp]

Sounds like we're generally in agreement Jason. It's all about reasonableness.

 

[Ian Ball]

I think that in terms of what we have, the booking system is tip top, for those who can remember posting a SAE to Ingleborough estate office and getting a reply saying it's booked will surely agree the new system is just fabulous.

However in terms of large bookings by clubs, Surely seeing the club is no issue?!

(If that has been answered in the marathon post above apologies, I've not read it.)

 

[Fjell]

For the next four Saturdays I count a total of three bookings across the Dales. I really don’t think congestion is caving‘s main problem up here, possibly the opposite. We extremely rarely see anyone else underground unless it is near Lanc Hole entrance. Not like it used to be.

 

[Steve Clark]

For the next four Saturdays I count a total of three bookings across the Dales. I really don’t think congestion is caving‘s main problem up here, possibly the opposite. We extremely rarely see anyone else underground unless it is near Lanc Hole entrance. Not like it used to be.

Thinking about it, that was partly the driver for my original question.

I wonder if (because it is now so easy to book) that folks may pull a plan together in the days/week beforehand and are just leaving it until the last minute to actually book it?

When I first started 'booking' caves (say couple of years ago, pre-covid) there seemed to be a healthy number of red 'X's across the spread on a typical Sat/Sun when you looked at it during the week before.

Would be interesting to know if the time/days from posting the booking to actually going caving is changing over time.

edit : You could also conclude that you rarely see any congestion underground because the system is working really well !

 

[afraidofthedank]

Good for you for using the booking system.
But your post above doesn't really address the point made in the 2nd paragraph above.

Please be assured though that I do concur with the common sense approach, which in many cases provides a harmonious solution.

Regarding that 2nd paragraph, I agree with the suggestion about allowing club details on the booking system, a good idea even if not workable. Perhaps if there was a way to add expected party size for a booking, that might also serve a similar function (i'd definitely avoid if a booking said the booking was for 20 people). With the current system you might reasonably expect people to avoid the venue if you've booked it, but again, you can't guarantee exclusive use. It is annoying to find pitches already rigged, but a couple of groups could go in lost johns or notts and not really bother each other too much by just taking a different route, so people will assume it's fine, because the vast majority of bookings are only going to be a couple of people.