Lactodorum

Excellent stuff!! If there's anything I can do to help just let me know.

Ah semantics! Don't you just love semantics? The question of Public Liability has been raised at Groundspeak and there has been a lot of discussion between "Reviewers" about the subject. At the end of the day it was felt better that we drop the term "Approver" as this implied, in the strict legal sense, an acceptance of liability for new caches. Don't ask me to summarise the argument as I'm not a lawyer. Until the various web pages that mention the old term are updated you will come across both terms. I hope that is sufficient explanation. Hopefully you'll see no difference in the "service" Eckington and I offer the Geocaching community at large.

Sorted

Thanks for the tip SP, I've changed his cache without telling him. I hope he doesn't mind

Hi Volvo Man. Your take on the definitions are exactly the same as I use when reviewing caches. One of the things I look for in the review process is whether the cache type matches the description. Where there's an obvious difference I e-mail the owner before listing the cache. However there are occasions where the type is open to interpretation and for those I will go with whatever the owner chooses (possibly after discussion). However we all make mistakes from time to time and the occasional cache will get through with the incorrect type. In these cases a quick note to the owner and/or reviewer can get it sorted easily. When I plan a caching expedition I tend to read the cache descriptions before adding a cache to my "hit list" but I accept there are other approaches and I would urge cache owners to check their caches for consistency. Thanks for raising the point.

Much as I admire your enterprise I fear that your original post runs very close to the wire in terms of breaching copyright. As such, I'm reluctantly closing the thread. Sorry to have to do this but these forums have to remain "squeaky clean" in such matters. However your effotrs to try and help the wider Geocaching community are appreciated.

Yes it's promoting/publicising a cache and the forum rules state that this isn't allowed. However in the grand scheme of things I can think of worse things to get upset about I'll lock this thread and request others not to promote caches here and leave it at that. I hope everybody is OK with that. Oh yes, there are lots of caches in woods out there and with Easter upon us and the Bluebells about to flower what better excuse do we need to put the PC away and dust off the GPS?

FOr a very good summary of the PDA option check this out.

That's exactly the reason. I had a chat with Nige and we decided it was the best way to try and safeguard what was a very complicated series. As you say Stu, the annual subs are really very modest and I reckon good value, even if you only get to do this one series

I have been in contact with The Northumbrian and I am quite certain this is no joke. It is a genuine demand from a genuine security body. I repeat that I am dismayed at the level of paranoia in official circles but there's nothing I can do change the situation. I suggest that having vented our collective spleens we just accept it and move on to happier issues - like hunting for ammo boxes hidden in the woods(oops!!!!) Thread closed.

Now normally cache advertising is not allowed here, but this series of caches has got to be the exception. I'm very happy to see them given all the publicity they need. I know MarcB has spent an awful lot of time setting them up and I was delighted to be able to approve them all in one hit. Go get them guys and gals...... Now who's going to be FTF??????

Many of you will have noticed the archiving of the popular Victoria's Mailboxes locationless cache. This was forced on us as a result of a communication to the owner from "The Authorities". The owner has made enquiries and the communication appears to be genuine and comes from a government security department. The problem is that visitors had to publish the precise co-ordinates of the mailbox visited. Unbelievably, this was seen as a "security risk" by TPTB and they thought it was giving valuable information to terrorist groups planning a potential attack The mindset of people who consider old postboxes a serious target baffles me but with all sorts of dire consequences being threatened we decided to archive the cache. Given the date that the archive request came through (2nd April) I took some convincing that this was genuine. What a mad, mad world we live in

A perfect example of how to write a cache page for a tricky cache can be found here. Try blaming anybody else after reading that!

Hi Ben. There are no real rules/guidelines about the GC.COM descriptions people place on caches, neither do I think the sport would benefit from having anything too prescriptive. My view is that one of the attractions of the sport is the idiosyncratic style of writing cache pages. No, I think the Terms of Use have got it right when they state that YOU, the seeker, assume all risks and responsibilities when caching. We should remember that we are all adults (apart from children who should be supervised by adults at all times) and we all need to use that increasingly precious commodity, common sense. I think it would be a very bad world which prevented maniacs from climbing Ben Nevis, in winter, in trainers if they insisted on doing so I agree that it is always useful if there is some indication of the risks and hazards involved in a particular cache, be it mud or dangers of falling/drowning but at the end of the day you can always turn back if it's getting too much.

Hi Fangsy, there are no clear cut guidelines so just let common sense guide you. I've found larger "micros" than some smaller "Regular" caches. My own take on a micro would be it is small (!) and only contains a log and maybe a pencil. If it is in that "grey" area you can always describe it in more detail in the description to avoid confusion.

.....and.......! There are some concerns about this type of cache amongst Groundspeak reviewers as some people (and I'm not for a second suggesting you ) have used "off-site" clues to circumvent the normal Geocaching guidelines. I suggest you run the details past myself and/or Eckington BEFORE doing too much work and submitting the cache for review. We'll try and work out an acceptable way of making it work. While I agree that not everyone has a mobile phone I wouldn't see this as a bar on this type of cache as long as it is made clear in the description that a phone is necessary. Here's looking forward to working it out Peter/Lactodorum

There has been a question raised as to what constitutes a "buried" cache. This also raises a wider question that I'd like to get your thoughts on. Starting with the "buried" question, the guidelines clearly state "If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate". Easy you might imagine but what about the situation where there's an existing hole that is just the wrong shape to take your container? Can you enlarge it by hand slightly so as to make the box fit? What if the hole is big enough so that the cache is at or below ground level and is covered by stones - is this buried? We've all come across situations where things are not clear cut. My take on the "buried" ruling is that something qualifies as "being buried" if a hole was dug specifically to hide a cache which is then covered with soil. If a cache is placed in an existing hole and covered with stones, twigs, grass etc. then that's not buried. Then again what about the hole that's been "extended" by hand to make the box fit. In my book this falls on the accepted side of the line. If the hole was dug specifically to take the cache then that's NOT acceptable. So we're dealing with an interpretation of the rules where there is no clear yes/no answer. This then raises the question of WHO is going to do the interpretation? I don't know how many active cachers there are in the UK at the moment but I would guess there must be 2-300 at least. I would suggest that if you could ask every one of them to "judge" one of these "problem" caches you would get many different answers. What to do? I would argue that reviewers should take on responsibility for making a definitive decision in such caches. It really boils down to opinions as to what's acceptable and what isn't. Geocaching CANNOT work if it subject to potentially 2-300 different opinions. After all, new caches are subject to reviewers' interpretation now rather than peer approval and I believe the system generally works quite well. Eckington and I would like to start a discussion on what YOU think so please let us know your thoughts.

Hey John, "my friend" and I both wanted to add our congratulations. Not only for all the caches found but also for some really great caches hidden. Good on 'yer. Peter

'nuff said Thread closed.

Looking at the map I reckon that Helsby Hill is certainly NT land so wouldn't be covered by the agreement. It looks a good spot for a cache though!

Consider it unarchived. Go get those bugs

Thanks to the initial approach by Obi Wan I have been discussing blanket permission with the Forestry Commission in Cheshire. I'm pleased to announce that the Delamere Forest authorities have agreed to the placement of caches in their area subject to the same conditions as those in place for North Wales. Although the area in question is fairly limited, with their help I am trying to get it extended. This shows the value of making the correct approach in the first place and for that we should all applaud Obi Wan. Good on yer' Gary

If anybody is getting "Server Errors" when trying to log things on GC.COM or when writing on the forums don't worry Groundspeak is well aware of the problem and Jermy is working on it. Just don't ask me for the details, they're far to technocal for me

Whitey, I'll try and get something moving for you. I'll contact you privately by e-mail.

.......and us!