kewfriend
-
Posts
909 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kewfriend
-
-
Its obviously not my 'shout' to pass this information onto Network Rail. Hopefully TPTB/Reviewers can deal with this.... Unfortunately for safety reasons we cannot allow any geocaches to be place on Network Rail's land. It is also a criminal offence for individuals to trespass on the operational railway and we are concerned that some of the geocaches are on rail property and may thus expose participants in your sport to the risk of prosecution and/or safety risks.... In this regard we would be grateful if you could provide us with details of any geocaches which .. may be on Network Rail's land so that we can investigate this further ...
Brian Wortman - Communications Executive - Govt & Corporate Affairs
Network rail, Community Relations, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
tel: 0845 7 11 41 41
-
From Defra:
One would assume that unless such permission has been specifically granted permission does not exist. Reasonable requests I suspect will be met reasonably. Other regional managers must exist but I do not know who they are.In order to request permission to hide caches in your chosen location please write to:Abdul Gerber, Regional Estates Manager (Thames)
Kings Meadow House
Kings Meadow Road
Reading
BERKS RG1 8DQ
-
re security and the Met Police
I have been told in a follow up email that no notes were taken of meetings between the Met and the RP and so no data was forwarded under the FoI.
I'll leave others to make of this what they wish.
-
My reply to the Royal Parks
Ms MarksMy thanks to the staff of the Royal Parks for their cooperation.
I am aware, not least because I have seen them, of other email trails. For reasons of confidentiality and to protect those persons who showed me the email trails I cannot reveal to you how when or where I was made aware of them. It is partly because I saw these emails that I generated this FoI request. I have also received at least one email directly myself on a geocaching related topic and would, had I bothered to keep it, recopied it back to you, but it was of minor importance. Because of the narrow nature of my request I am aware that other 'letters' fall by the wayside by default.
I must obviously assume that emails and notes of meetings get regularly deleted if not seen as of importance, unless you of course advise me that this is not Royal Parks policy. I naively trust in the probity of civil servants so must assume that there has been no deliberate with-holding of notes and emails which would cast the writers in a 'bad light'. It is of course entirely possible that some staff in the Royal Parks, may not have thought that the FoI request applied to them, despite your good offices.
I do find it strange that seeing that 'security' is quoted in several documents that there are no communications with other government departments or branches of the Metropolitan Police seeking clarification on this issue.
I would hope that you can clarify the few points I have raised above.
Yours with thanks
-
I have received eight redacted documents in PDF format. If anyone emails me I'll forward them on; there are (quite properly) no personal details.
As far as I can see the 'security' excuse is largely spurious and dreamt up at the most senior level in the RP with no reference to the Met., so as to stop the geo-activity. Some parks reported back that of the activities in their area geocaching was the least of their worries, no surprises there. I am pretty certain some documents have been withheld as the documents submitted in no way reflect all those I once 'saw' - which makes a mockery of the FoI - again no surprises there.
The good news is that there are openings I think for discussing geocaching on a 'park by park' basis or even on a 'location by location' basis. The RP do not come out of this well.
-
OK ...
I havent posted for a while to let the dust settle and a sense of proportion, including my own, return.
There are lots of separate issues - my own hasty fury being one of them, and I apologise.
I have proposed a compromise to GC.COM. I am in direct discussions with the CEO Royal Parks. I have greater hope with the latter than with the former re Peter Pan.
With respect to the other issues:
1) GC.COMs behaviour - no further comment from me.
2) Geocaching in general - well if written proof of title ownership of land and/or permissions in future is required that opens a can of worms. Thus that includes whether (for instance) The Department of Transport etc is entitled to know which geocaches are placed on the public highways and to decided on their appropriateness. Your call - but you'll get the drift.
3) Unarchiving caches - out of my hands
I will do nothing hasty and I have calmed down. My apologies to all.
-
I have suggested a 'way forward' to GC.COM. Until then let things lie and things may calm down. Its Thanksgiving in the US (certain irony there) and they'll need a few days to ponder.
-
A night's rest is a wonderful think.
Those who know me well understand several things.
a ) I always play with a straight bat [ every cache - and thats the vast majority cf Iona - I had ever set had had explicit permission except where as in the RP permission had been assumed.]
b ) I always resist bullying - and short term popularity so I can 'play' with a bully is of no interest to me
c ) If I say something will happen - then it will. Jibes about toys and prams are ignored.
Geocaching has always operated in a hazy arena. Basically unless a cache explicitly runs counter to the overall guidelines, then unless a cache is explicitly identified as being in the 'wrong' place then it has been allowed. The issue is that most organisations and landowners (national and local) are unaware of what is happening on their land. Given that the UK Reviewer is now operating a policy of explicit permission and seeking documentary proof of ownership and permission I am completely prepared after the weekend to assist him in taking that to its logical conclusion. For instance AFIIK the BWB is unaware of any cache on any UK waterway. Well we could explore how they feel about that - and if they grant overall permission then everyone is a winner.
I have indeed archived all my caches including all those where explicit permission was granted and those on my own land. I will be delighted if those caches are visited to collect any TBs, coins etc. If sense prevails then they can be (with Reviewer assent) unarchived.
Is there a compromise position? Yes there is - because like all of us I rather like the 'hazy' air in which we operate. Its fun.
I have made public on GAGB the coordinates of PP on the Bayswater Road. I invite any concerned geocacher to go visit and comment. Speculating on legal 'ownership' is not what I seek but a simple comment on whether the cache can in any sensible sense be considered as cacheing within the Royal Parks. IMHO the 'hazy' world can return and PP can live again.
-
Chris has deleted the following two logs from the Peter Pan (London). IMHO the bad old days are on the way back. This really has to stop.
TINKERBELL HAS BAD NEWSTinkerbell has been informed that Hook and the Crocodile have teamed up in the form of the Royal Parks agency to ban geocaching. Tinkerbell has very strong views indeed on grown ups who upset children and has gone back to 'magic school' to find a useful 'spell' which will work with her sparky wand.
Tinkerbell suggests that you might like to send the Royal Parks a Christmas Card to protest and how they are treating little children at Christmas.
In the meantime Tinkerbell is trying to find a way round the nasty nasty nasty Royal Parks. She thinks this typical of grown ups, and particularly upsetting in her anniversary year. Tinkerbell has updated here Christmas Card offerings to include a Word DOC format file as well. It will fit into an A5 page layout she has been told by the IT fairies.
-
Tinkerbell announces that the amended Peter Pan (London) is up and running. She has a little job for Captain Hook ......
-
Your book publisher does not have common carrier status or anything near it, but strangely enough in essence you have got the grist - which is why from time to time publishers recall books for 'pulping'. As for any criminal offence very very very unlikely unless your intent was to enable robbery with violence.So if I were to write a book on, say, robbing banks, and my publisher went ahead and published without offering me any advice - or removing any sections that would actually enable somebody to rob a bank - they'd be in the clear if somebody did use portions of the book to rob a bank. But on the other hand - if they advised me that I ought to remove certain sections because they'd give a third party enough information to rob a bank - but a third party went ahead and robbed a bank anyway, using other information from the book - they could be held liable??? -
Recent discussions have brought up the role of 'Reviewers' and the fact that they are not 'Approvers'. The explanation for the difference in terminology has been the issue of implied legal responsibility.
In a different (but related) IT arena I have had to unpick this one.
The bad news for UK Reviewers is that in UK law you are judged not by what you call something but by what actually happens. (This will justify their interventions in the Royal Parks affair). If your actions can be deemed to have encouraged or enabled illegal actions then elements of the criminal law may apply - though I'd be hard pressed to see the DPP allowing a prosecution. If your considered or reckless actions can be deemed to have encouraged or enabled a situation whereby a third party (land owner etc) suffers a financial loss then you can be sued.
Strangely - (as I have discovered wrt to my own 'other issue') - if you do nothing but just publish, no moderation, then your liabilities only kick in if you fail to respond to a subsequent reasonable request from the aggrieved to immediately correct, amend or desist . This is the 'ISP-censorship' / 'blog' issue.
If you make suggestions as to appropriateness of what is published but do not actually 'moderate' then again you are 'in the clear' until otherwise advised.
Strangely were the GC Review/Approve process to take part wholly in the US on US servers by US reviewers you could publish details about any caches in the UK anywhere.
US law is different, particularly wrt 'publishing'. The 'publishing' defence tends to take precedence over any other litigious processes. France is the other way round - as sTeamTraen will know.
-
Thats OK Kev - we love you anywaySorry folks. I will not sign the petition to the PM. I really do feel that my signature, if used, would be better used on more serious matters. A plastic box hidden in a bush just doesn't warrant it. Apologies.
Thanks Tink! I'll be mailing and add one of my custom made ornaments that I give out in my caches to draw attention to the card. All the best and happy Christmas!Don aka "Fababoo"Markham, Ontario, CANADA
curses! I tried to sign the online petition but you must have a valid UK postal code. Do you think a postcard from the US would count for anything?I have sent my email and card. I have also posted you email on the local Geocaching forums/boardsIn order to get more geocachers involved even if they have not done the caches.
Best of Luck
Gary F RozeckiSHOCK! Tinkerbell, your caches are our favourites.... we are mailing our card from Canada this afternoon.Blessings and gratitude, The Phantom Pipers
I'm sure there will be more
-
TINKERBELL has emailed about 250 people who have in some form signed the logs for the Peter Pan (London) cache.
Here are a few comments:
Can't sign the petition since I live in Canada, but will certainly send the card. The policy here about caching in national parks was just recently changed, so I am hopeful that the same will hold true in the UK.Happy Christmas indeed!
Bill (SearchinSwifts)
Well, I have signed the petition, but it would appear that they don'treally want to hear from non-Commonwealth citizens. I selected
"expatriate" since I do not have a UK postal code. But a small skirmish
back 200+ years ago removed me from being a subject of the Crown. I
think I'd have to go back a dozen or so generations to make that claim
legitimate.
For what it's worth, during my visit to England last year, I made a
special trip to Hyde Park just to complete this cache. I would never
even have thought about visiting the park were it not for geocaching.
The same could be said for many other caches I've done over the years -
it takes you to places you would never have otherwise known about let
alone visited.
Peter "Grunriese"
New Jersey, USA
Hello Ian i was at goldpots event last week and lots of folk were fuming,me included,he works in regents park but the order came from on high,his boss does not know why this happened, you might know we have connections Pat is a Dame(dbe) and we have had corgis for 45 years so we will do our best with her nibs,i mean hrh. hope you are well,happy caching jeff=bones1.
I'm sure more comments will follow!
-
We wondered where you'd gone - this green & pleasant land awaits. I've just read all 3 pages of this topic and feel the need to have a big sigh 
... There are great swathes of the US that are off limits, principally National Parks where just a few Earth and grandfathered Virtuals exist. ... Just live with it.We come back to England in about a year. It'll be nice to cache back in the wet and green again!
Without question it is the precisely the refusal to embrace the Just live with it. philosophy that opened up swathes of the countryside, has kept public footpaths open, gave us the right to roam, defeated the crown in Richmond Park etc etc - the list is quite long.
No - I (and others I hope) will not just live it. We will challenge it, confront it, debate it and finally we hope - change it.
-
Do put the link to my Christmas Card to the Royal Parks as well.
-
-
Thank you for your enquiry dated 23 November 2009, regarding geocaching, under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Your enquiry is being dealt with and The Royal Parks will aim to reply to your enquiry within 20 working days, commencing from the day after receipt, 24 November 2009.
If you have any questions pertaining to this enquiry or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. My contact details are listed below.
Anne Marks | Records Manager & Data Protection Officer | The Royal Parks |The Old Police House | Hyde Park |London W2 2UH | Tel: 020 7298 2070 | Fax: 020 7298 2005 |
-
Yep - my mistake - its gone to the Chief Exec RP Agency. Call it early onset of senility!But isn't the Office of the Public Guardian an organisation that helps people with dementia write wills and stuff? -
Absolutely serious!
-
I have submitted an application to the Office of the Public Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act for:
All internal emails, notes of meetings and communications with other government departments and with the Metropolitan Police by the Royal Parks Agency concerning the pastime of ‘geocaching’ within the last two years.I hope (provided it does not cost me too much) to unravel the true reasoning - if there is any - behind the RP actions. Wish me luck!
-
I suggest forwarding it to the Royal Parks
-
Thanks for the suggestion.I did this cache, and very much enjoyed it - thanks. Why not move the physicals to nearby Holland Park, which isn't a Royal Park so doesn't fall under this ruling, but leave the virtual part of visiting the statue as is?If there is a problem it will hang on the issue of cache density in HP. This may be one of those rare instances when reviewer 'discretion' may be needed re cache densities. Its not that far between the parks. The main problem on this cache is that all the relevant linked caches will need to have their first stages updated so this will not be a quick process which is why I am asking the review team not to wade in archiving left right and centre.
I have already archived SPOUT in Bushy.
Again I note that the RP said access after dark was not permitted in their parks. WRONG WRONG WRONG: in Richmond we have the legal rights, we exercise those rights and the RP respect that. I have real difficulties with the continual double double speak emanating from the central RP - but down on the ground in Richmond our rights are in fact respected.
-
On the issue of Hyde Park and my Peter Pan cache, I would like suggestions and guidance.
This is an international multi involving all 7 Peter Pan statues in 5 countries across 3 continents. Its immediate closure will bring down all the other six parts of the multi.
Any sensible thoughts on how to keep this up and running in any form will be much appreciated. My 'beg' to reviewers is NOT to wade in and immediately archive it. Just give me time to sort things out.
Re Richmond Park: both apply, rights of access from William of Orange and rights of way from the long court cases (cf above). We the populace have the rights and we must defend them. The only times the rights have been suspended have been 'foot and mouth' and 'animal culls' in recent times. Nothing wrong with that, I never KowTow to unreasonable authority and such bullying. Hopefully my views are not 'lone' views.
[
]
... There are great swathes of the US that are off limits, principally National Parks where just a few Earth and grandfathered Virtuals exist. ... Just live with it.
]
NETWORK RAIL
in United Kingdom and Ireland
Posted
Hmmm ...
That is the full content except for personal details edited out.
My apology is on record and all previous caches etc have indeed been archived, including a sidetracked. One seeks to re-establish a sidetracked, one communicates with the appropriate authority and one receives a reply - not necessarily the reply one wished. One publishes the reply.
All hell breaks loose.
I surmise (but its a guess), that NR view all land, stations, objects, boundaries etc as within their purview. If NR follow up this with another 'request' it will be forwarded to any geocacher's address rendered to me, but there is no intention of my replying to this NR letter.
Whatever Dec says about sidetrackeds etc and other caches on NR property, I know that I have done dozens of caches that are at the best 'problematical'. I will not list them here for the obvious reason that that could cause a 'heap of trouble' and NR could read this. There is also the separate issue that the PoT exceptional arrest provisions apply to ALL public transport property, AND nearby locations. There is the additional issue that the placement of a cache is itself only accurate to (lets say) 10 metres which means that any person seeking a cache near to public transport property may inadvertently or even deliberately stray onto such property.
It would have been wrong not to place the NR communication in the public domain.
It is up to the TPTB/Reviewers to either dig a little deeper into this issue.