Neath Worthies

Geocaching is about finding an object someone else has hidden. Did you find the box? Yes? Great. Now move on and find another one.

Who gave you the right to steal someone else's cache because in your opinion it was in an unsuitable position? I took Moote's comment to mean that the cache was posing a danger to traffic on the motorway below, if so then he's perfectly right to remove it. Ah! Thank you, I didn't know that's what he meant. Presumably he then placed it in a place close by that wasn't a danger to traffic and got the coordinates updated by the owner.

Thanks for the answers, I've now ordered an 8GB card so let's hope it works!

Who gave you the right to steal someone else's cache because in your opinion it was in an unsuitable position?

Anybody know the maximum micro SD card capacity the 60CSX is capable of supporting? I know it's at least 1GB as I have that in it at the moment but I wondered if it could be expanded even further. Ta

Having researched it a bit more it would seem that as I use "old" style maps with my version of Memory Map (5.1.3) on the PC and PDA I will have to upgrade them for £200 plus another £20 for the app. So it's £220 to look at the data I already have, I can't see me doing that thank you very much!! I guess it's all due to the iniquitous licensing system used by the Ordnance Survey which being a monopoly Quango can get away with charging what they like.

I see Memory Map have released an app to allow maps to be used on the iPhone. Has anybody tried it yet? The reviews don't look too promising. At £20 it looks very expensive, especially considering the equivalent is free for Windows mobile devices.

Or to put it another way "Please don't post opinions that differ from mine". The OP is entitled to ask a perfectly polite question without being accused of "stirring things up". Give the guy a break even if he hasn't done a forum search.

Sorry but I'm lost Who's advertising? What profile? Am I missing something?

I asked Brad about the "not contacted" bit actually. He said that he is sending emails right before he archives them. Perhaps you should check your email again, or check spam filters. Actually I sent an email to the cache owner before closing the cache When the cache owner contacted me I asked if he would like for me to forward a copy of the message, and in response to his request, I forwarded a copy of the message on January 17. I am hopeful that either the original message or the copy or both have been received. Without knowing the facts this LOOKS like a miscommunication problem. I wonder whether this sort of thing might be better handled by a local reviewer, of whom we have several nowadays. Didn't local reviewers tend to deal with local caches in the past?

Aye! It's getting to be big business these days. Simple fun doesn't equate to increased profits in a measurable way so harmless "games within games" have no place. It's also interesting that the archiving came from corporate HQ rather than our own local reviewers.

That is reassuring, thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding of the "new rules".

No, sorry, I still don't understand. Maybe it's me but this blanket EC permission issue looks more and more like "Computer says no" syndrome. I'm still to be convinced of a good reason for needing to get written permission to suggest to someone they go somewhere they're normally allowed to go to and look at something without having any lasting impact over and above that caused by them visiting normally. I might be convinced of the need for occasional permission in certain circumstances but NOT an unbending blanket requirement. I guess that maybe I'm too thick to understand. Sigh!

I think they missed out a "K" in the place name - should be "Wacko"

Thanks for coming to this thread in the UK forum To take this point of yours one step further, surely the GAGB agreements only cover the situation where a PHYSICAL object is hidden. As Groundspeak stopped virtual caches some years ago the GAGB agreements do not cover people just visiting a site and taking photos/reading signs/etc. So nowhere in the GAGB agreements is written proof for anything "Virtual" needed.

They already exist, but not on GC. I can't provide a link here for fear of breaching a guideline but a more general kind of cache, known as an "Educache", exists which encompasses all the elements of an Earthcache and is already in place.

Thank you for your attempt to answer Deci even though I am still unconvinced (maybe that's MY problem in understanding). However I still feel it more appropriate to ask it here as this is a UK forum, discussing the application of a guideline in the UK by GeoawareUK which results in what many (some? me?) feel is an unwarranted imposition given the UK's legal position, being quite different to that normally encountered by the Geological Society of America. I disagree for the reasons stated above. In any case, I can't see too many Americans being particularly interested in rights of access in the UK. I know the main forums are described as being open to anybody, in practice they are vastly dominated by American geocachers. That's why Country groups have been separated off.

To drag this back on topic could a passing reviewer/lackey please answer my original question. Thanks.

Could someone "offical" please explain to me WHY permission is required for a Virtual Earthcache? As has been repeatedly pointed out, nothing actually happens at an Earthcache site aprt from people visiting it. I understand why in UK law there is a requirement for a landowner to give permission for someone else to disturb their property (i.e. by leaving a small box there) but when nobody actually does anything apart from visiting why does an internet site listing a description of the location (and nothing else) need permission? Im pretty sure Geograph for instance doesn't need permission and I see Virtual Earthcaches as being very similar. And what about sites listing tourist attractions, do they need permission before listing places people can visit? This all seems a bit "over the top" to me.

So I could start a thread about Ice Cream salesmen because I met one once whilst geocaching? I think it's really handy to know where there are good cafes near geocaches. Mustn't mention them - Groundspeak considers them "Commercial" and hence forbidden. And as for old "Grumpy Pants", the thread was started by mentioning an event that happened while I was caching.

To present the other side of the coin to a recent thread I thought I'd relate an incident while out caching yesterday. I was walking throung a wood when I noticed a collie type dog coming the other way. Some way behind it was its owner. When the owner saw me she called to the dog which immediately sat down and watched me. As I got nearer its tail was wagging rapidly but it never moved. The lady owner came up and apologised if the dog had worried me. I replied that I was delighted to see such a well behaved dog and gave it a good stroking. We parted with smiles and the dog trotted off happily. So do not tar all dogs or dog owners with the same brush, many (most?) owners are responsible people and their dogs are well behaved. Let's hear it for this majority.

You wouldn't like my wife then

Amazing how you know me so well despite never having met me. Possibly not, but an honest cache log shouldn't be something to be ashamed of. No, but rudeness in a cache log is. But in my opinion, the OP's log was not rude, just honest. Just because you consider something rude doesn't mean everybody will think it is rude, in the same way that just because I DON'T think something is rude doesn't mean everybody agrees with me. My advice is to be honest to yourself when writing a log. If you don't like a cache, say so. Taking the soft option of only ever giving praise devalues praise in general. Simply ignoring something you think is wrong allows that wrong to self perpetuate. There are numerous examples of what that approach can lead to.

So no cache'n'dashes in B&Q car parks - excellent!

p.s. What does "Dadgum" mean and what is its derivation?