wildlifewriter

Getting a formal Land Registry search done can be very slow. Look at your chosen location, and think about it. Is the path in a wood, or does it cross agricultural land? What use is the adjoining land being put to? Are there any signs or notices visible? The quickest way (in rural areas) is to ask around. If anyone is working on the nearby land, that's a good place to start. (Take a pack of cigarettes with you, even if you don't smoke.) Go to the nearest farm, and make polite enquiries. Be open and direct. Take an OS map with you, so that you can point out the exact spot. In country villages, the best sources of accurate information are (i) the Vicarage, (ii) the Pub, and (iii) the corner shop. If the footpath is a ROW, the local Ramblers might be a good source of info, as well.

You read it here first...

Just outside the entrance to a prison in Northern Ireland, there's a sign which says (very sternly) that "Taking photographs of this sign is prohibited." It goes on to list severe penalties for anyone caught doing so. (A spell in the gaol itself isn't one of them.) I don't have a picture of it to post here, for obvious reasons. -Wlw

Not so. A cemetery or burial ground may (or may not) be private property in its entirety, with no general right of public access. This might be indicated by a sign or notice, but it doesn't have to be. A individual burial PLOT may also be private property - in the sense that the rights to it are owned by an individual or (more usually) by a family. This is a formal type of property ownership, involving deed and registry. (The law on this in Scotland differs slightly from that in England & Wales, and in Ireland from both.) Such posession gives the owner(s) a right to decide what is placed on the plot, in the way of memorials or other markers. This could be a problem... In such a case, anyone who hides a cache in such a place - behind or under a grave marker, for example - could be guilty of trespass. Worth thinking about.

Probably not - but all the same, I think it's time to re-open the discussion about this. Here in Ireland, we've had a significant influx of new (and very enthusiastic) recruits to the hobby. Some of them have expressed surprise and a little concern about this exact issue, and we've had a useful discussion about it in the local GI forum. It was thought that there's a distinction to be made between cemeteries as a general location, and the use of headstones, grave markers or other memorials themselves as hiding places. I'll be interested to see what the views are, here.

It certainly is. My best (Edinburgh) day was eight - and I barely had time to stop for quick cig and a drink of Lucozade.

Get it right ... Groundspeak does not formulate and impose the rules about caching. There are no "rules" - there are only guidelines and criteria. The guidelines and criteria only apply to caches which are submitted for listing on geocaching.com. If you dislike or disapprove of the way that Groundspeak run their site, you don't have to use it - either to find caches or to have them listed. Hang on a tick, though... <pause> Interesting stats profile...

No. The only full and final Forum Suicide is one which contains enough personal abuse of moderators/approvers/Groundspeak staff/other members to get the poster banned from the site. This would certainly qualify for a maximum score of 10, but is difficult to achieve without some kind of long-term personality disorder. Such "perfect" suicides are normally to be found near the bottom of a topic titled: "Why hasn't my new cache been approved after three whole days?" [Edited for the hell of it]

Rating the OP according to the criteria laid down in the Forum Suicide thread... This suicide was quite good, for a first effort. It contains almost all of the compulsory ingredients: petulance, paranoia, self-justification and vapid whingeing. Marks were lost because there was no proper conspiracy theory against the poster. The poster's hopeless spelling and grammar were exactly what the judges look for, and an inability to use the <SHIFT> key properly was a nice touch, earning an extra mark. Overall "forum suicide" rating: 7 Well done.

This is a good idea... For my part, I'd like to not apologise to all those people who have taken offence at my postings in these forums. Please be assured that such remarks were entirely intentional, and did not result from any kind of misunderstanding. I would like to apologise to those few who haven't yet received the patronising remarks or personal ridicule that they deserve - this is due to pressure of work. It is hoped that the backlog will be cleared in a couple of weeks.

Although I haven't logged it yet (and have no plans to), I can't help wondering what the point of THIS CACHE is. It's at the back of a bungalow (of no particular architectural merit) which seems to belong to relatives of the cache owner. The cache owner himself lives in the USA, but it looks like any overseas family who are unfortunate enough to be related to him, will be getting a cache placed in their home sooner or later. From the page, one might be forgiven for thinking that the point of this cache is the special location: "made famous the world over by naturalists for its enchanting fauna and flora,.." - except that IT is over five kilometers away. The cache has a decent selection of swap items. (There weren't any when it was placed, but the first local cachers to visit have supplied some. Oh - and they supplied the box, as well.) But... what's the point of it? Your guess is as good as mine.

There are a number of programs which will display the info on a desktop PC. GSAK, for example. There is a need to have the info available in the field, on a portable device. This is really what the PQs are for.

Looks like I've been using the wrong character for "degrees" for a long time. I type ALT+167, which gives one of these º .. but according to Character Map that's actually the "Masculine Ordinal Indicator." Hmmm. On reflection, that's so cool I'm going to keep on using it...

Thanks to Markwell for the authoritative answer. That clarifies the position. It doesn't address the problem of this continued stream of ill-placed, unplanned (and un-maintained) tourist caches appearing in my country. It does give a significant insight into why the problem exists, and seemingly will continue to exist. Thanks for all the contributions, guys.

I can't answer that, because I don't yet know a definitive answer to the original question: "If a vacation cache is approved, does the local maintainer have to be a nominated geocacher?" If the answer to my question is "yes", then the answer to your question is "only ONE of the vacation caches approved here in the last twelve months, appears to comply with that guideline." Hth,

The "scenario" was rather light-hearted in an attempt to amuse, but yes - there is ample evidence that a majority of vacation caches here in Ireland are placed "irresponsibly"... ...in the sense that the owner has not obtained permission, nor troubled to find out if the site is environmentally sensitive, nor made any practical arrangements to have it maintained.

OK. Lets see how that would work if the situation were reversed... <ring,ring> "Yes Hi, may I speak with Mr. Smith, please?.... Hi Bob, It's me... me Wildlifewriter from Ireland, you remember. I'm fine thanks - how're Mrs Smith and all the little... Really? Jeez I'm sorry to hear that, Bob. And she took the children with her?... Well maybe it'll work out. Listen, Bob, you know that vacation cache that you promised to look after for me?... it was when we were in the bar, having a few beers. Well. quite a lot of beers in your case. I mentioned about maintaining the cache, and you said "Shurewynot" or something like that... ... You're going to have to move the cache for me Bob. Apparently it's in a National Park, and they're not allowed... Well I didn't KNOW it was a National Park, did I? - I'm only a tourist and I'd never been to the USA before... No, you'll find it easily, Bob - it's up that road, through the gate beside the sign that says "National Park", and turn left... there are some trees. Well, it's beside the biggest one.... that many, huh? It's about 400 metres to the... a metre is how we measure distance over here Bob - think of it as three feet and change... It's pretty urgent, otherwise geocaching.com will archive the cache... Could you do it tomorrow?... What's that, Bob? I'm truly sorry to hear that too, Bob.... - maybe you could go up there after the funeral? Now, I'm going to need new co-ordinates for the cache, after you find a hiding place for it.... Couldn't you BUY a GPS? They're not very costly and real easy to use, once you get the... hullo?... hullo, Bob...?"

Listen - Bob Smith's a helluva guy. I'm not saying a word against Bob Smith. They broke the mould when they made Bob, and that's the truth. I'm just wondering: What's good ol' Bob going to do (him not being a geocacher, and all) when this cache in the Conservation Area has to be moved 400 metres or so along the path - so as to clear the boundary - and new co-ordinates surveyed... -Wlw

My geocaching account name is clearly visible on my cache pages. (I haven't checked Bob Smith's.) Presumably, the account "name" is what was intended, here... if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.

That is correct. However, my query in this topic only asks: Is it mandatory for the maintainer to be (i) another geocacher, and (ii) identified on the cache page - as the guidelines seem to imply. The question of whether a responsible cacher would place one (for example) in another country, half a continent away from home, on private land AND in a designated conservation area, with misleading co-ordinates, and with no way of maintaining it, (this is all one cache we're talking about, here) is another issue entirely.

The guidelines on "vacation caches" seem pretty clear: "Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be listed." No grey area there, then - such caches are unacceptable. Except that it seems they ARE acceptable, if you can find "someone else to maintain them for you." In my area (Ireland), vacation caches - I'd prefer to call them "Tourist Caches" - are being approved at the rate of (on average) one per month. Inevitably, many of these are defective in some important respect - inaccurate co-ordinates or containers, or no permission granted from the landowner in recent cases - and eventually some are archived. These problems would be easier for the local caching community to deal with, if the maintainer was identified on the cache page - as suggested in the guidelines. (We've got to assume that there IS a maintainer, right?) In almost every case, the listing doesn't even mention a maintainer, let alone provide contact information. Should it - or is it just an "example"? [Edited to clarify the point, but probably didn't.]

I've made up the test data in the form of an Excel-compatible spreadsheet. 12 locations, you are testing conversion from ETRF89 to Irish Grid, but not the reverse. I'll need a PM with your e-mail address.

He's getting some interesting results, which show that some work is still needed on the two web-based tools. I cannot test Barry D's utility after all because it only runs on PocketPC, which I don't use.

Well done, Snaik - getting the hang of it, now...

Give me a few days, and I'll tell you which of those three gives the best and most consistent results for Ireland. (Statistically) Having studied the code for two of 'em, I'd guess that it'll be pretty close. (NB: Results will be e-mailed but NOT posted here without agreement from all those involved.) -Wlw.