Mad H@ter

No too far from Fowey is the must do Bikini Bottom

This is exactly what happened to me with BBONT and they the immediately requested that these caches were archived and remove

The first geocache in the UK was England's First!. for the story of England's First there is a brief history of it at the bottom of this web page. Good luck with this, I tried once to persuade BBOWT without success .

Oh yes, I forgot, listen to it as soon as it's released, well within a day or two. And too much football

Look forward to seeing you

The first was the one upt North suggested by John above: Northern Cache Bash 02/02/02 - GC3319

Just as much fun a sniffing around any other piece of street furniture for a nano! And some people do seem to enjoy this sort of cache, can't see the attraction myself but then again, as strange as it may seem, I'm sure some would say the same thing about a cache involving a hike of a few mile in the middle of no where. Oh, and talking of "sniffing" around, you want to try some of the many phone box caches up this neck of the woods

Just what I was thinking

Is Seasider still at the top

OMG, I'll soon be out of the top 100 at this rate . Once made it to number 20, unlikely that I'll ever get close to that position again.

Just out of curiosity, is this ALWAYS the case, how about caches with grandfathered rights ie Virtual caches? [snip] I can remember Archiving one webcam cache in the last 12 months due to a NA log to it. in that case the Webcam had been Off-Line for years. With a blind eye being the case as no one had reported it. (if this is a dig about a specific webcam cache which got archived, I had communication off the owner after the action had been taken. And we still happily communicate with each other) [snip] Deci Not a dig, honest, although I do know the webcam you mention and was rather surprised it lasted as long as it did. It was a genuine question as it was my belief (it would appear incorrect) that an archived cache could only be unarchived if it met current rules guidelines.

Not sure if the rules guidelines have changed, but a while back I had a new cache fail the review process due to it having the wheelchair attribute and a terrain of 1.5

Fully agree, even though I don't always agree with them. In this case though: The CO did not respond to a needs maintenance log. Did not respond to a needs archiving log. Or a number of found logs indicating a problem. It had been indicated that there was a potentially serious health hazard. IMHO it was a good call by Deci and struggle to see how on this occasion it could be argued otherwised, particularly as it was reversed once communication was started. It seems to me that as is often the case on here, some posters are just intent on having an argument for the sake of it. Just out of curiosity, is this ALWAYS the case, how about caches with grandfathered rights ie Virtual caches?

SHE indeed does like to exercise HER right to disagree as for not taking seriously people that don't agree with the masses and dare to have a different opinion is just typical of today's society "just follow the herd" kinda of attitude Apologies for getting your gender incorrect, poor assumption made based on gender of avatar (I think?), hope you were not too offended! Regarding not taking people seriously who do not agree with an opinion, yes I fully agree with you. However there are times when some people are deliberately disagreeable (is that the right word?) just to cause/prolong an argument. Your sig in my mind seemed to suggest such a scenario.

It would seem that t4e is just exercising his right to disagree! Perhaps he should not be taken too seriously.

Could you post a link to the trackables page or its reference number starting TB***** ie My link or TB1BT2B

I had been thinking exactly the same, I'm sure that we've all seen areas around caches trashed, particularly in the FTF frenzy when first placed. Sadly not all cachers are respectful of their environment

Err, I'm afraid you (collective you) do. One published near me on Sunday, but I guess from the description/s you have no way of knowing exactly where it is. We had a similar discussion last year when I suggested that we should send pictures of where the cache is so that you can consider things like this. I suspect the picture above just adds to the need to do this. I take it that you posted a Needs Maintenance log or probably more appropriately a Should Be Archived log to bring it to the reviewers attention.

OMG, and people are even buying them My link, one person even bought 5 lots . I'm off to Boots now, catch you all later

I don't belive that the issue is with permissions, I think that it is to do with NT placing there own caches and allegedly using them to solicit geocachers on to their property to use their facilities.

Time that this had a little bump I have just update the listing page, to find out more click here.

Definitely remove them along with any other baned items, they are baned for good reasons after all.

So where's this post hiding? Edit - Seems to have reappeared now I've posted, very strange. Was it just me that couldn't see it in the list of UK topics?

I have checked a number of online sources for a definition of litter and have found the following: • A disorderly accumulation of objects; a pile. • Carelessly discarded refuse, such as wastepaper. • Trash, wastepaper, or garbage lying scattered about. • An untidy accumulation of objects. • To strew (a place) with scattered objects, rubbish, etc. • To scatter (objects) in disorder: • To be strewn about (a place) in disorder. None of these definitions IMHO could be applied to the majority of Geocaches, either active or abandoned/archived.

This is of course after checking ALL listing sites to ensure that it is not active there.