Neath Worthies

It is often suggested here in the forum that you should be honest when writing a log and to improve the cache stock that you should be honest. That is exactly what you have done. The cache owner obviously deosn't like criticism for what sounds like a wholly inappropriate cache location. If I were into writing online logs I would repeat my original comments, perhaps with an explanation why you are writing them. If they are removed again I would repeat them in a Needs Archive log. I may be wrong but the CO cannot delete those. It will also let the reviewer know there is something seriously wrong with the cache.

If it affects the way you and the reviewer interact when you are Geocaching then I would have thought Groundspeak need to get involved. If not, then thrash it out privately. If the reviewer has made any public accusations then you have a right to defend yourself publicly, otherwise it should be conducted in private.

But surely the whole point of a cache is to bring someone to an interesting location. If there's already a cache there why try and put another one? The cache finder has already experienced that "special" location.

Not NIMBYism, just someone expressing an honest opinion in a non abusive way. Surely he/she is entitled to a different opinion?

Why is it taking so long for GSP or a forum mod to block this sock puppet?

My approach as well. I enjoy the walk and usually write in the log book for the benefit of the cache owner but I never log online these days. We all play this game our own way. I don't tell you how to play and I don't expect to get told how I should play it.

Woah!!!! Come on now, think what you are saying. Equals?! You value the life and well being of a dog the same as a human child?! Anyway I have a dog and think the world of him. He is a companion as well as a pet. He runs free when the occasion permits and is kept on a leash when he might cause inconvenience. He is normally totally harmless and trustworthy and loves playing with children. BUT I always keep a very close eye on him in such circumstances. And when we are with people, many of whom do not like dogs I keep him on a close leash. I don't have the right to impose my love of dogs on others. I have never been attacked by a dog but believe me, dog lover or not, if I was in danger I would take EVERY measure to protect myself, my wife or, yes, my own dog. I have nothing but contempt for those who fail to control their dogs and are blinded to the possibility of everyone not loving their pooch as much as they do. Oh yes, I always bag up my dog's mess and carry it with me until I find a suitable bin!

You are kind to take the time to offer advice but as this is a UK part of the forum is it really relavent to talk about $ prices and presumably a US based $ rebate scheme?

It was more of a rhetorical question. Of course I know it's an inflexible RULE like all the so called Guidelines. So why fanny around? Stop calling them Guidelines and call them what they are - RULES.

But it's only a GUIDELINE so by definition it's only for guidance and is not mandatory. If I wanted to hide a cache in an "Urban" location (and I don't) I could read the Guideline and decide myself whether or not to abide by it. Or am I being naive?

Looks like it... Fair play to the CO, whether because of this or finders comments. But surely the warehouse owner whose land the cache is on would have informed their security guards that permission had been granted and to expect geocachers nosing about?

And that is the way to do it! No blowing up of the cache, no arrests, no hassle. Well done

The cache owner was spoken to by the police and no further action taken. The cache finder was arrested and presumably at the very least received a police caution and now a criminal record. However he/she was surely assuming that the cache owner had followed the guidelines and had permission for the cache. Indeed the cache owner specifically stated they HAD permission by ticking the relevant box when submitting the cache. If I was the cache finder I think I would be feeling pretty miffed that I had been misled into putting myself at odds with the law when I blithely assumed that the cache was there with permission. Despite the noble apologies by the cache owner here (and I think that was a brave and admirable thing to do) surely he/she should be the one the police are hounding, not the innocent finder.

Can we be reassured that Timberland removed the archived caches to prevent geolitter and that they will be releasing any geocoins/TB's caught up in the archive process. Presumable the reviewers required this to happen before considering publishing the new series.

...... and were all four placed with the express permission of the park authorities?

I was intrigued by the discussion on this series so decided to have quick look at the cache pages to see what the fuss was all about. Found I couldn't get at the list of caches on the Timberland page without "registering" so entered some dummy details. Anyway the cache pages themselves looked innocuous and the logs made interesting reading, especially the Wandsworth Common one. But what caught my eye was this phrase in the cache description "and to the south side of the park is the Michelin starred restaurant Chez Bruce, where the celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay learnt his trade". While I fully realise this is a commercial cache approved by Groundspeak I took that to mean the Timberland aspect had been approved. Given the recent discussion about whether or not it is acceptable to mention a pub name in a cache description surely this is blatant disregard for the rules the rest of us are being forced to adhere to? Or is Groundspeak taking a kickback from Chez Bruce too in which case I can understand the apparent double standards?

In my book there is very little difference, and I think both organisations should be encouraged. My only concern is the apparent inconsistency towards charities and other non-profit making bodies which in general are stamped on severely should they get mentioned in cache descriptions. To be crystal clear (I hope!) and to avoid misunderstanding I believe charities, including the NT, should be welcomed in Geocaching not discouraged by TPTB. H

Why? Are you trying to get NT caches banned? Or do you want more - as you see them - commercial caches allowed? As I read it Ve8 was alluding to Groundspeak's well known attitude to charities and their general reluctance to allow them to be mentioned in cache descriptions. Deceangi specifically stated that in the case of NT caches their charitable status was a reason for ALLOWING them to be involved in Geocaching. Surely this is something that needs clarifying for the UK Geocaching community. For the record I am a supporter of the National Trust and I am delighted that a) the NT are supporting Geocaching they are happy to allow existing caches to be granted permission, even years after being placed c) Groundspeak are willing to work with a charity in this way But in my view this highlights a major inconsistency in Groundspeak's attitude towards charities. Ve8 was politely asking if there had been a change and who better to answer this than Deceangi who as the UK's longest serving reviewer must surely have the "ear" of Groundspeak.

Is it really that compelling a location that needs a cache? Maybe research a better location to bring cachers to and forget this one?

Good luck with it but be prepared for a lively discussion here!

Just came across this I never knew it existed.

Looking back wasn't this the self same issue that let to the resignation of (most of) the UK reviewer community some years ago?

Another way of looking at it is that "Nationally Owned" forests will be sold off to "private" individuals or companies. They will then manage the forests while by law keeping existing public rights of way. Doesn't that sound a bit like farms today? So suddenly all need for compliance with existing agreements will vanish and any new caches can be placed with exactly the same requirements (or rather lack of them!) as now apply to caches on regular footpaths running across farmland. Sorted

From what I read unfortunately there is no mechanism for ignoring them. If you carry out a qualifying action you get one. Apparently even using an App on your smartphone to search for caches in a zone covered by a souvenir gets you one!. I have absolutely NO objection to people collecting them if they WANT to. All I ask is a checkbox or something on your profile allowing you to opt out. So far I avoid most of what I don't want out of this game by not logging finds online, it seems my approach won't stop Souvenirs though.

Yeah very pretty but I echo the plea for the Greasemonkey wizards to do their stuff again so at least I can ignore threads again. As long as the forum does what its designed to do I'm OK with it.