nobby.nobbs
-
Posts
2218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nobby.nobbs
-
-
could be, had noticed that but it's a cache that's turned up where it's not meant to be without any details as to the website it's listed on or anything.....
-
anyone heard of this team or branch of the hobby?
-
Nominations are open for chairman
-
It's that time of year again. So we need to nominate and elect a new chairman and committee. To vote you need to be a full member of the gagb with a cut off date of this thursday coming: 7th oct at midnight.
Then the following dates apply:
nominations for chair open: 9th oct close 15th oct
voting for chair open 17th oct close 22nd oct
nominations for committee open 24th oct close 29th oct
voting open 31st oct close 5th nov
Please forward this to any forums that you are members of so that all know in good time to join.
__________________
-
as an aside, cotswold leisure give a discount if you're a member of gagb, so if you are going to buy anything all you have to do is join and print off a discount voucher
-
some great advice here, I'd also have a geocache made and handy so that you can show them. Another good idea is to take them to find one, it can be a hard hobby to explain well but actually taking someone out to a really good cache can make them see the benefits and attractions of the hobby.
-
Sorry. Misinterpret. Big fingers and mobile phone touch screens are not a good combination
-
There is a plan to amend the wording of this guideline so as to make it more difficult for anyone to deliberately misinterpretation it. Also plans to try and arrange a face to face meeting. We can only do so much when faced with such deliberate ignorance.
-
If we are going to produce a website, then we will
require a server to host off. If there is no-one out there who has a spare/server with free space, then i am sure that we will find a way around it.
Well he certainly doesn't have his own server for it
Chris (MrB)
I do have a server, but it is not the best one on the market
So why not approach GAGB and see if they would appreciate some help with their web pages?
We're always happy to get new ideas from people.
Come onto the site, have a look round and offer constructive feedback. We know that the site is in need of a make over and could look much more appealing. No need to just tell us that. Give us something to work with and we can try to improve.
Then post it on the forums.
Thanks
-
on the point of the wildlife trusts, I am trying to resolve this issue, it's going to be a very long slow uphill struggle with only a small chance of success.
-
But again, keep it in proportion. In your example, the cache was quickly archived when it appeared that damage was being caused; the key thing is that it was reported before damage got out of hand. It's not like we built permanent caching sites that can't be removed.
Wish I could keep it in proportion. The damage was extensive with just one day's worth of over eager First To Find Teams. It's very possible to cause an excessive level of damage in a very short period of time before any cache is archived, this damage can then take many years if ever to repair.
It's also much more severe than the damage caused by normal walkers due to the turning over and moving.
At the end of the day unless we're botanists the safest route is to ask. Most wardens of reserves are keen to encourage proper use. They are on the sites anyway so arranging to meet them isn't too much of a hardship. We may not be able to influence the whole world but we can make a difference within our community to try and improve. Cache in trash out and so on.
-
. All this makes geocaches insignificant in the extreme if you're worried about the impact of the container itself (as well as the minimal impact of cachers wearing out the footpaths).
To my mind, we'd be better off educating landowners and official bodies on the real impact of geocaching (i.e. hardly any), and focussing on areas such as SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) when it comes to requiring proof of permission. Investigating a cache on a Welsh summit which is only an SSSI, seems a waste of public money and brings the permission system into disrepute.
"One of them is the cache. It's a modified thimble painted to look like a pebble. Cool, eh?".
2nd point first. To educate them you need to show them the effect of caching on an area, The best way of doing this is to get them onboard and let them see a cache being placed with care and attention to protecting the area.
How is this any different than asking permission?
Just because everyone else causes damage and litter shouldn't mean that we can go ahead and do what we want, lead by example.
first and third point together. Yes I hope that they will see that a couple of cachers a month would have so little impact as to be insignificant. But if the container is a cunningly disguised small pebble I bet they don't get that impression. I can draw from several memories of going to spots, that turned out to be protected areas without permission, where someone had hidden a small container really well.
I arrived a day or two after the published date. In an area of about 40ft by 40ft of woodland ever piece of dead wood, every piece of moss, stone, leaf litter, basically everything that was mobile, had been picked up turned over and dropped back down. It looked like someone had ploughed it.
It was archived the following day due to damage and lack of permission but not before the damage had been done to the land as well as the trust of the owner.
-
Graculus' site is very useful and will give you all sorts of helpful links. In England, the Natural England site is good for finding out info for Earthcaches, by the way!
AFAIUI if you can identify the landowner and they give you permission, then you wouldn't need additional permission from Natural England or Welsh equivalent. If you ask them, they will point out that you still need permission from the landowner, so probably best to start with the landowner.
As an aside:
Personally, I think all this SSSI permission stuff is over-the-top and before the MAGIC Map came to light, no one really knew where they were, and surprisingly enough, few problems have arisen from hiding caches on tops of mountains. Now we know where SSSIs are, it turns out they are huge and vast swathes of upland areas are SSSIs and hundreds of caches are active within them, without any problems.
The nature of SSSIs is, I believe, misunderstood. They are often/generally/frequently not delicate environments, like Nature Reserves. Far from it, certainly in much of upland UK where ramblers, climbers, mountain bikers regularly enjoy the areas. Many of the SSSIs are also CROW access land and are frequently visited. Most of the SSSIs are designated as such so that the landowner doesn't do anything radical to change the way the land is managed, rocks aren't quarried, large quantities of fertilizer are used, or such like. Quite different to Nature Reserves where introducing people to infrequently visited areas, set aside for rare plants and animals, is potentially risky, and consequently, worth checking out with the Wildlife Trust or whoever manages it.
I support the GAGB guidelines which state caches shouldn't be placed where they might cause damage, but generally, for most SSSIs, a geocache will have no affect - certainly much less than the thousands of walkers treking up the paths. The hundreds (thousands?) of caches already in SSSIs don't create problems and if an individual cache does, then it can be removed or sorted out. Natural England must be wondering why they are suddenly getting contacted by loads of geocachers!
I think the situation with SSSIs should be reviewed as I think it's rather disproportionate.
And, no, this isn't a criticism of our hard working reviewers, it's just raising the topic after the changes in practice this summer.
( Just my thoughts, and yes, a cache with specific permission is better than one without, but in the middle of a fell surrounded by boulders and bog it's a) hard to know who owns what, and
it has no impact so if you're allowed to walk there i don't see a problem. I assume that most caches out in the wilds don't have specific permission - maybe I'm wrong but I wouldn't like to bet on it Assessing the site yourself and ensuring it's a good placement is 'adequate' IMHO. )The problem is that how do the reviewers tell the difference between the cache placed in a completely safe not harmfull location on a SSSI or one that involved disturbing a very rare plant that's tiny and not known about by the placer?
So at the GAGB we do try and get people to get specific permission to get caches onto SSSI's. The local warden's are usually very supportive and open to geocaching. The method I've then used is to get the warden to come out with me when placing. Then they can be happy that the location is not going to cause any problems. Which means that people get to enjoy the cache and location without damage. Just because ignorant walkers or cyclists accidently cause damage does not mean we should as well when just a little effort can prevent it.
-
An excellent decision and tribute to Ewan. Thanks to all involved
-
They are apparently innocents just walking around taking photos then running home to plan exactly where and how they are going to detonate the device.
Interesting. The 7/7 bombers blew up tube trains and a bus, which doesn't seem to require a lot of photographic planning. Does anyone know if the people who tried to blow up a London nightclub and then drove into Glasgow airport the next day, took photos?
In any case, as someone else has said, you don't need to take photos, even with a geotagging device. You can find pretty much any worthwhile terrorist target on Street View. I think I read somewhere that terrorists have Internet access now.
I'll bet that anyone planning such an act will visit the location and that the people who committed the violence on 7/7 also visited the sites and made notes or took photos.
Police accumulate lots of little pieces of information which eventually fit together to point the finger of suspicion. That's how it has to remain until we develop a machine to read minds from a distance.... but then you'd not want that because it invades the minds of innocents.
To be protected you have to pay for it. Like I said it's a balance you have to give up a little to get a lot.
-
Unfortunately the world is not a perfect place and the bad guys refuse to wear a t-shirt emblazoned with " I'M A BAD GUY"
So the police are left with the task of either using the powers and stopping many people and get moaned at for stopping innocents; or they only stop the ones with a big bag marked " BOMB". But then they might miss this person and then be criticised for failing to stop an attrocity.
Most of the idiots planning stuff these days are not know activists. They are apparently innocents just walking around taking photos then running home to plan exactly where and how they are going to detonate the device. There may be ten groups of them or there may be none. If to prevent another act of terrorism I have to be stopped and talked to; as long as the officer is polite and explains why and what they are doing then I have no problem.
Yes my rights may have been slightly eaten away. But that's not the fault of the officer it's the fault of the idiots wanting to kill. It's a balance we have to make in the real world.
-
Good to hear that there's interest.
now could i have a volunteer to organise? just to liaise to get a group together then talk to the producers.
-
we've had a request to form a team of geocachers to go on tv. any takers
-
Where can I post a GAGB negotiators need maintenence note?
??????
Don't know either but poss. dig over Royal Parks????
more than happy for anyone to try to beat us by getting more major agreements
-
Where can I post a GAGB negotiators need maintenence note?
??????
-
Nominations for the committee are closed. There were 8 nominations who accepted these were:
Dave Edwards-The Wombles
Tony Pinnington-mongoose39uk
Lucilla/Mrs B-The Blorenges
billD
Keehotee
stuartp
drdick&vick
gazooks
The constitution allows for up to 8 members of the committee so please all welcome your new committee.
-
(Re-)listing a cache in the Royal Parks on another site would be potentially catastrophic - for the game as a whole and for that listing site in particular - and I would hope that the GAGB would step in.
We'd certainly try and discuss with the other listing site and explain why those caches should be removed.
We do have a reasonable relationship with those other sites.
To risk going slightly off topic.
You may have the right to walk accross land. Or to go and play with a frisbee. Or have a picnic. We are talking about whether there is the right to leave an item on that land and tell others to go find it. I think you'll struggle to find any legislation that would even imply you have this right.
The suggestion that the reviewers pick and choose when they insist on permission. You'd prefer them to be strict? I doubt that they would be happy to drop all requirements for permission, They'd have to go the other way. Fancy having to send them proof for every cache?
Stay quiet and place a cache and remove it if asked or go to the effort of asking in the first place. Ultimately you take the risk that they will say no, but the chances are they wouldn't be any happier if you just went ahead so in the long term it's better to ask in the first instance. Landowners do talk to each other, what's better; that they talk about this odd hobby that someone's asked them to be allowed to do and find out that there's not been a problem, or that there's a bunch of people that couldn't care less and have been placing caches as and where they feel like?
-
Hasn't geocaching also been recommended in a government white paper on health/excercise too? If so, and anyone can provide a reference then it would be worth mentioning too. Also worth mentioning that other authorities welcome the activity.
On page 11 about libraries sports and leisure, but it was in 2004.
there;s also this : natural england who are funded by the government and advocate walking for a healthy life, that was from this year I think.
It's a pain when these things happen and it can take some time for them to be resolved. One thing is for sure though, if we just list them elsewhere and ignore the ban it will get worse. The chances are the MET will revoke their agreement and we will never be able to re-negotiate for these caches to be allowed. At the end of the day it will always be easier for any landowner or manager to say no when asked, the more hassle that is involved the more likely we get that no.
If we remove the caches as they ask and then discuss with them providing evidence and opinion we stand the chance of showing them the benefits of allowing decent law abiding people to search for hidden containers. If we make a pain of ourselves we just guarantee that they will go out of their way to stop people having fun caching.
-
Today is the opening of the nominations for the committee. please make your suggestions on the forums.
thanks.
it has no impact so if you're allowed to walk there i don't see a problem. I assume that most caches out in the wilds don't have specific permission - maybe I'm wrong but I wouldn't like to bet on it Assessing the site yourself and ensuring it's a good placement is 'adequate' IMHO. )
EarthCache Guidelines Updates
in EarthCaches
Posted
I'm just airing the same views expressed by others on here.
I think this is a pointless and unneeded change which will only detract from the value of earthcaches.
Of course it will increase armchair caching as any question will be answerable via google, whilst this may educate the "finder" to a limited degree they will not have been to the location and experienced the information themselves at first hand.
I struggle to see any reason for it. Any reason for removing a photo requirement to prove you actually arrived and found something out for yourself.
This is a short sighted and ill conceived change that will only result in the devaluing of earthcaches.
But at the end of the day I, and the rest of you posting, are wasting our time. When have any of tptb ever listened to the thoughts of those who actually post on these forums?