c657ljr

Newbie, the cacher has been a member for over 6 months, has 200 finds and has placed 2 Caches. That certainly does not make them a "newbie" compared with say someone who joined just before xmas with no finds none placed. Edited for my usual spelling reasons Obviously you haven't worked out the sock puppet thing then - in reality I've been caching longer than you. Perhaps I should have said "relative newbie". Back on topic, I find this absolutely fascinating that no-one will offer their view on landowner permission, not even the two reviewers on line at the moment. Says it all really.

Who said that any breached the guidelines? Not me. All the guidelines say is "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived." I'm questioning whether "you assure us" is good enough, questioning the guidelines themselves. I feel than permission should be proved, just like you do with Woodland Trust. As a reviewer, I would have thought you'd have a view on this topic. How many caches do YOU think have landowner permission then? I've offered some realistic advice to a newbie, but wondered afterwards if my view was wrong, so decided to seek alternative views on this topic.

A newbie thinks he can't place a cache within 4 weeks because he can't get landowner permission that quickly. So I respond with the "truth" that in fact the vast majority of caches are placed without landowner permission and so as long as you say you've got permission it will be published (as long as not in SSSI etc.). So am I right or wrong, how many caches do in fact have permission? How do reviewers check? Should more care be taken by reviewers to ensure that permission has indeed been granted? Why should a cache placed in a SSSI be treated any differently (from a reviewer's perspective) than one placed at a railway station or on some railings? Surely the onus is on the placer to prove permission has been granted for ALL caches and no cache should be approved unless permission can be proved? How would you feel if someone placed something on your land without asking you? Discusss - and that includes you TDW!!

Are you disagreeing with my comments; presume all your caches have permission? What would your advice to Amberel be then, oh wise one?

My admittedly limited experience suggests I would be hard pressed to get permission for a cache within 4 weeks. Of the 5 I've tried to get permission for, I've been successful on 2. On those 2 the people responsible for the land were very enthusiastic, but it still took 4 weeks even after I had identified suitable locations. Rgds, Andy Unfortunately that's why so many (most?) caches are placed without permisson. All you need to do is tick the box to say you've got permission and submit. Unless you've hit on something like a SSSI or Woodland Trust or National Trust site and the reviewer notices, you'll be fine and the cache listed.....

Agree. Presume you're referring to the Mod that locked the "newspaper" thread a minute or two after Lactodorum's post #5 enquiring about link to Geocaching? Strangely, that Mod's post locking the thread has mysteriously disappeared... So yes, I do think the moderation is flawed, but only when one Mod does something in haste and then back-tracks and deletes his posts as if it had never happened. Bit like un-publishing a cache. Unfortunately some of us saw the thread-locking post before it was deleted. Clearly this incident has upset Lactodorum, quite understandably as he rightly chose not to lock the thread, hence this thread.