maxkim

Edward V (princes in the tower)

Some years ago we did a couple of caches in the Netherlands which were buried. When you got to GZ it just looked like a ploughed field and this is what we have avoided with this sort of rule. Having done several of the caches on the suspended trail, the hides consist of a 2" length of 2" diameter yellow plastic gas pipe with a piece of slate on the top. Inside there is just room for the film pod. Most of these had just been placed in natural hollows in roots or similar and don't seem to go against the new 'rule'. I hope after all the effort put in that the series survives but it will take a lot of effort to sort out.... MaxKim

We have just had one published in Leeds for Alistair Brownlee, its a sneeky hide and a small box not a nano... Maybe a Gold for Dalesman X as well.... less than 5 mins from submission to publication.... is this a record? Cheers MaxKim.

Big thanks from us too... :) MaxKim

Rowan says count her in....

Hi there, I haven't had time to look but Follow the Arrow site by The Blorenges may well have the details you want...

Not quite sure whats happening... Are the caches automatically suspended or do we have to do it if we get an email? Removal may be more of an issue at short notice, I can do the maintenance as laid down but, like now not short term. Regards Max

If it had been the same weekend as this year we would have been there, as it's a week earlier sadly not

You can also buy more than one year at once. I know we did a couple of years ago when the exchange rate was well in our favour.....

GC16KWV - Liverpools Musical Links is good fun, not quick mind but all in one place to find the info then a short walk to the final... Bit of music history in the flesh as it were. MaxKim.

Rings a bell... did Dr Who go there?

Or become one... it's only an hour a week :lol:

That should work...Max

Bridge, underpass, rotating knob under button and bleeping all should help. Cheers MaxKim

Suggest you get the person who gave you permission to email TPTB to state it's ok there. It may be that they think it's a kiddies playground which is why they have taken the action they have. Always dubious caching in such locations... Email the reviewer to ask why.

Same here, both on comments I have passed... and on the receiving end when there has been a query on a cache or two of ours (Always on the QT and polite).. sometimes all you notice is a reviewers name popping up on the log of those viewing a cache.

Oh this is much better.... I do keep a list of DNF's as well, but on checking our 9 pages it was great to catch up on several caches where I had done the maintenance but not logged the fact!!! and none of them had shown up on the PQ. Cheers Max :P

Thanks for that.... a big help... also explains the delay in being published.... :)

We have a weekly PQ for any of our caches which have the NM attribute... Not perfect but it does help with over 150 caches.

What and take all the fun out of it??? :lol: Happy New Year... MaxKim

I have just noticed that the "cache not in place" button has gone.... (Or whatever it was called). This was very useful for getting round the 20 minute rule for creating a cache page. I seem to remember that the request was made on here for it to be defaulted to unchecked... but I don't ever remember anyone wanting rid of it... Am I on my own on this? MaxKim.

I know, and I'm not criticising your action which I know was taken for the right reasons even though I think it was counter-productive. But my point is that there probably IS a cache at the coordinates, and I'm trying to avoid having abandoned caches sitting around with no easy way of knowing where they are. If you'd been to check the cache before posting the NA it'd be a different matter, but I don't think people should be going through listings of distant caches and flagging up seemingly neglected ones. It seems that you've withdrawn the NA log anyway; thanks. As I understand it even if deleted the NA log remains in the reviewers list... and they can ask the relevant questions... I hate to search for ages for a cache that, when you go online to look at is has 15 + DNFs etc against it. I don't agree with HH that others should maintain caches for someone that can't / don't maintain their own... and I admit I have failed myself on occasions and the NA does promt action... But to argue that it leaves litter if they are archived cannot be right or we wouldn't get rid of any. Round here local cachers make the effort to remove geolitter... maybe this could happen in the IOM? Cheers MaxKim.

and also different levels... we have one near us... the local water is level 1 (To protect the wetland birds) the woods around it are level two, because they screen the level one as above... under GC rules both apply at an equal level.. just for info... Do you have a reference which explains the "levels"? I've never heard of it, and there's no mention on the Natural England website. Perhaps it's new? They were there in 2009 when we set our Eccup Reservoir Series. The water was level one and the screening trees were level two (ie not the reason for the SSSi but to protect the water which was the reason for it.) This was shown clearly on the maps for the area.

There is very little constancy amongst the reviewers. Our local reviewer is refusing to publish a series which is virtually identical to one which allowed by Lindinus just a few months ago. This does seem to be a bit of an ongoing problem, but I belive that this is more of an issue with Groundspeak. If the reviewers have difficulty in applying the "Guidelines" consistently, what chance do we have? On the few times this has happened with me the reviewers have used their private comms to discuss the issue between themselves which does / did give a level of constancy...

Count us in pet... Are you in charge??? LOL... :)