Tim & June

Hi Muppetmel Sorry that our log has upset you. To be fair, we have visited some of your other caches and we found them to be in fairly good locations, particularly in view of the fact that they were in urban locations. In this case, we could see no reason to visit this location, there were no redeeming features. It is within a few feet of one of the main roads into Southampton, there is no view, no point of interest, no history, or indeed any other reason that I could see to make the site worth visiting. Yes, it is true that there was quite a display of crocuses in the nearby church, but in a week or two those will be gone. Over the years we have been caching, we have noticed the steady decline in the quality of the locations that caches are placed in. We hoped that by being honest in our logs, the quality might start to improve again. It is rare for us to venture into these forums but after being told by a cacher about this thread I felt I had to offer my thoughts. Again, sorry you were offended by what is our honest opinion.

Hang on. You are supposed to be the spokesperson for Groundspeak and you didn't know that. Or have the goalposts been moved again ?

So the way I read all this is : If you mention that you had a great pint and meal at the nearby "The Dog and Duck" on a cache page it would have to be approved by Groundspeak themselves and not our local guys ? So, if every new cache page did that they would all have to be reviewed by the USA. I wonder how many caches are submitted on a daily basis and I wonder if they could cope over there.

Pathetic ! Also, is your photo of the KFC chicken not also advertising ? Typical small minded USA.

As you are probably aware we do not frequent these forums but as we often receive emails from cachers thanking us for leaving T&J Bears we thought we should let you know we have now launched the MK6’s. We have often been asked the history behind the Bears and after the large sum of money they raised for the Tsunami appeal we have decided to launched a website for them which can be found HERE

Well done that man and thanks for bidding on our bear. Thanks also to everybody else who has done their bit either by auctioning bears or bidding for them. Many thanks to Huga who was the inspired person who started the ball rolling. We know that had it not been for such a good cause, the bids would have been much lower but June and I are flattered that our bears can do so much for other people. Just goes to show there are some very generous cachers out there. We also paid the funds via http://www.dec.org.uk/. here is a copy of the recipt. PS. Please remember to tick the "Gift Aid" box. This means that the government will pay into the fund the tax that you would have paid on the donated amount. In this case that amounts to an additional £15.68.

WOW! thanks Gary & Jane. As per our promise, our Mk1 is also now available. CLICK HERE Please bid generously.

It is rare indeed that I visit these portals, however, a distressing post elsewhere prompted me to do so. Firstly, many thanks to our UK admins. They do a terriffic job against all odds often trying to mediate between the opposing forces of TPTB and the UK cachers. It is a fine and difficult line to walk. As ex-admin, June and I know this from bitter personal experience. The UK cachers really do need to support and understand Lacto and Eckers in their task. We all need to also say thank-you to them once in a while because there is nothing more disheartening than thinking you are stuck in the middle and nobody appreciates you. Thanks for your work guys. On a separate note, June and I are particularly proud and flattered that a cacher is auctioning some of our T&J Bears on Ebay. MK2, 3, 4 and 5. We have kept one of each version of our bears for posterity, but as it's for a good cause and if they raise enough, we will also auction our only and very rare MK1 bear for the same reason. So get bidding. Here are the links : MK2 CLICK MK3 CLICK MK4 CLICK MK5 CLICK Happs cachin Tim

Do you guys also pull white rabbbits out of top hats ? We have tried 5 times, each time talking to someone else, and each time meeting a brick wall until talking to head office. We also know of two, possibly three cachers, who have been meted out the same treatment. Hope you got the name and hope that he/she does not speak to the others. As they seem to be now asking for dialogue, I think that the current committee members should take a lead. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

quote:Originally posted by Dean&Abi:From T&J's note, the reason for them resigning the chair, was because June was unwell - and I'm sure everybody involved with Geocaching in the UK is thinking of her. Hi Dean and Abi, sorry, you did misinterpret our reason. We are just fed up with trying to do our very best for caching, only to always be doing the wrong thing. June will be back on her feet within the week, and normal caching will resume. Thanks for your thoughts. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

quote:Originally posted by Bugz n Elm'r (& RoadRunna & Twee-T):be thankful these people only want to control geocaching and not anything really important Elm'r Team Bugz n Elm'r Clearly you have no concept of what the GAGB and all ther work we did was for. Why don't you just **** off. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

quote:Originally posted by Team AshandEs:I'd consider the ability to deal effectively with criticism whether it is warranted or not, whether it is legitimate or "slagging" should be pretty much vital for anyone considering such a role. There is only so much crap one can take, and those immortal words "If you can't stand the heat . . ." fall immediately to mind. Thanks for your and everyone elses good wishes to June. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

quote:Originally posted by NattyBooshka: 2: I had no reply from an issue very much related to what I said when it was sent by email a while ago. If we had received an email, we would have answered it. Much work has been done at head office level rather than local which has even involved government bodies. We were asked to not discuss the matter further until later down the road. We would always respect such requests 100% because those involved were helping US. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

quote:Originally posted by NattyBooshka:I see we had a phone number, but I don't see anybody saying that they have spoken to these people. It turns out that Warwick Bear was just being helpful by providing the telephone number for Queens House. There is nobody there expecting a call or anything, so there was nothing gained. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

quote:Originally posted by Slytherin:The new "no virtuals where you could hide a box" guideline is not a good one . . . Not wishing to be picky, but I'm concerned that this might mislead some. This is not a new guideline, it has been around for the best part of 12 months which is when I first really noticed it. Don't know when it actually came into being. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

For what it's worth, our thoughts on this as ex-approvers. Firstly, I'm sure that Eckington intended no offence to anybody when he started this thread, I'm sure that he wanted to explain to UK cachers where he was going on the subject of virtual caches. As usual though, no matter what you do, somebody will be less than happy. It is good to se that the thread has maintained civil discussion though. There can be no doubt that there are a large number of virtual caches which are of great interest and value, at least to some. It also has to be said that there are also a number of virtual caches which are of absolutely no interest to anybody. An example, we rejected a virtual which simply consisted of obtaining the number on the side of a rubbish bin in a lay-by on a busy "A" road. It so happened that we knew the lay-by (it is close to home) and there is simply nothing there of any interest at all. No walk, no view, no historical info, simply a (usually overflowing) rubbish bin. Does that make a geocache ? I don't think so. However, there is a footpath leading away from that lay-by into the countryside, and, knowing the area, we know that there are locations along that footpath where a cache could be hidden. Was the cacher stopping off to answer a call of nature and spotted the "virtual" on his way back to the car ? Possibly ! Are the approvers in the UK trying to maintain the high standards that the UK is achieving ? I DO think so. We have seen many virtual caches submitted which appear to be a "cop out" in as much as the cacher has found large numbers, but not hidden any. "Oops, guess I'd better do something so I don't get a bad reputation" type of response (the above example was from a cacher who had found more than 80, hidden 0). I am not suggesting for one moment that all virtuals are like that, but there are a number. Perhaps we need to look a little more deeply into geocaching history to decide what constitutes a geocache and see if that has any bearing on why the guideline was created. I'm not sure whether or not there is a definitive description of a geocache, but most websites on the subject seem to suggest that primarily, a geocache consists of a container with a logbook and swaps, hidden at some location for others to find. Certainly the first geocache hidden was. It could be argued that this is the "traditional" geocache. Over time and as the game developed, it became obvious that some locations deserved a visit, but for one reason or another, a traditional cache could not be placed. If the setting of virtuals continues without some form of control we are in danger of loosing the thread of what geocaching really is. It could also be argued that a monument or similar is not hidden, it is available to all who simply pass by, either intentionally or otherwise and there are a number of websites on the Internet which are simply a database of waypoints of places of interest to somebody. Is this the direction geocaching should go ? Eckington and Lactodorum you have our (T&J) support, keep the tin helmets on and invest in a new Kevlar suit. As it says at the start of this post, just our thoughts on the subject. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

Thanks Eckington, will do. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

This situation is going to be difficult to resolve. Some months ago we were in negotiation with Forest Enterprise (who oversee The Forester Commission, or so we are told) and were at the final stages of blanket approval on their land provided we stuck to the guidelines (very similar to HCC with a couple of minor additions). At the final hurdle the head honcho's quoted the UK forum (this thread) where some cachers were saying that alcohol food etc were okay in caches despite what the guidelines say (not quoted verbatim so please read the thread). Sorry to bring that up again ! The result was posted in this thread Please read/re-read those threads carefully, a lot is explained. This was partly the reason the GAGB was formed. If we could get cachers to agree sensible guidelines could we approach land owners ? . . . We have tried to talk to the Forestry Commission in Lyndhurst, but they are not very helpful. I have heard of discussion (cannot find the pages on the web now) where the FC in the New Forest wanted to ban dog walkers, so I think there is little chance that we will get very far. Head office seems to be the only way to go. In speaking to a member of the Verderers Court (peculiar to the NF) He said of the local FC as "Humpf! Tin Gods", wouldn't waste my time talking to them". The problems caching faces in this sort of area are compounded by more recent posts where cachers still proclaim theat they do not want rules and guidelines. To be fair, if you were a land-owner and somebody asked you, then you looked at the forums, what would you say ? quote:"Oh yes, I can see that you cannot follow your own guidelines, but that gives me confidence that you will follow our ours, so go ahead !" I don't think so ! Anyway, for the time being, I guess the only way to put a cache in the New Forest is to make it "members only" until the situation is resolved. Alternatively, make it a big and very difficult multi so it takes all day to do, cachers might do it, but I doubt if a Ranger would spend all day doing it. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

Hi, Yes we can. It is number 163. It was given to us by Moun10bike himself when we took him to dinner in Godalming, way back at the beginning of May this year. To each side of that there ia a "wooden nickle", the one on the right was also from Moun10bike. Here's a photo.

If we might make a humble suggestion chaps, as one who has been there, dun that etc. Would it not be easier to put, at the top of the page quote: NOTE TO APPROVER THE FINAL COORDS ARE AT N XXXXXXX W XXXXXXX Then you can simply edit out that line before you let it fly. Gotta say one thing though, glad we're not approving anymore, it means we can do the multi's without anybody wondering if we cheated along the way. Not suggesting that either of you two fine chaps would do that, know you both well enough to be sure that neither of you would. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

Well done Omalley on your first anniversary. Typical of Tim though he forgot it was our second caching anniversary on the 23rd of August but what can I expect he even forgot my Birthday this year (but El10t to the rescue though he's put it in his diary for next year to remind him). In Omally's first year he has put a lot of effort into setting some very challenging caches one of which we are still looking foward to doing. I'm sure your second year will be even better. June

quote:Originally posted by The Cuthberts:We had this debate a couple of months' ago after approval for a UK cache was not given as it was made from glass. I think the GAGB guidelines now suggest that glass is not used for new UK caches. (I don't think we reached any decision on cache contents being made from glass though.) http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=6616058331&m=70860586 Andy Hi Andy, I think you are mistaken. The GAGB guidelines do NOT exclude the use of glass containers. To read the GAGB guidelines, please clickhere The decision to reject a cache because it was in glass container was made by an approver based on his own feelings on safety etc and the GAGB took no part in that decision. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

Just to let everyone know HCC have now added a report page to their website which can be found here We were informed yesterday morning that the event attracted well over 1000 visitors, wow Although it seemed fairly quiet in the main arena at times there were twelve teams out in the woods plus others doing the multi cache. This was an amazing achievement. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

Don't forget to bring your caching photo's (Max 8" X 10" including mounts), there is now a prize of some bubbly stuff and six lead crystal glasses. We also have some special bears and some "vino collapso" for a "Bear Wish Hunt" after the "Geomuggles" have all gone home. Looking forward to seeing everybody there. Do come and say hello, you are bound to pass us at some stage. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

quote:Originally posted by Teasel:let's not invent ourselves another new UK-only rule (like the UK ban on event caches without physical caches ... It is not often that I wander in here and have a read, so I am sorry to bring this topic to the top again. Teasel, I do hope you did not deliberately ignore my posts HERE where I said I would "ask for definitive answer from those above" and where I posted the response to that query. Also Eric (pretty much the top GC.com Admin) posted his clarification too. quote:Originally posted by Teasel:... and a possible UK ban on knives in caches), As June and I retired from admin, there was a discussion about knives in caches in the US, It seems that the general concensus over there is that knives are not suitable cache content. UK-only rules ? I don't think so. There will always be some differences around the World, for example, as far as I'm aware, if you want to walk down the street carrying a ten-inch Bowie knife in the USA, you can, but try that here ! The UK is the only country which has "Rights of Way" over private land. Scotland has no law of tresspass. In some cases then, we have to be slightly different, but in the cases you mention, we are not. Quite why some admins see fit to approve "cache events" without a caching element, I don't know. One thing is for sure I'm glad I'm out of it because I don't have to care about people bleating on about what I do.