Legochugglers

I assume they've been found 12 times by now. How did it go?

You click on the heart just below the log to register your favourite point.

Are you sure he didn't just mean the subsequent write note log you posted stating what a bummer it was that you didn't get a souvenir for Minnesota for finding the cache. Some COs prefer not to have these type of logs (which they may feel is irrelevant to their cache) included on the cache history.

I would guess that you and your stalker have form. You have probably called him out on a few caching matters and he has done the same to you. You probably have wound him up on a few matters and he has probably wound you up shortly afterwards. Your Earthcache probably includes something that he might be able to wind you up about and because you know this you realise you could wind him up by coming on the Geocaching forum and "outing" him to wind him up. It really is a sad state of affairs that most UK cachers are aware of but eventually you are either going to make love or kill each other. I hope it's the former.

The subject of Roundabouts has been discussed on the UK Reviewers Facebook page on several occasions recently and without specific pedestrian access it is a 'no' regarding placement. I appreciate that if you don't use Facebook then this is of no help and you are purely reliant on the wiki which tends to just use general terms as quoted above without specific mention of Roundabouts. Maybe roundabouts should be specifically mentioned but then, as soon as you start creating a specific list, then the next disgruntled CO starts to quote that it isn't on the list. My advice would be that if you are placing any cache that might have the slightest controversial placement, access etc then contact your local reviewer first and chat it through with them. They really are friendly and will provide guidance.

Looking at your first cache quoted, whilst it is not shown as on a footpath on google maps, if you change the map option to open street map then a footpath is clearly shown on the map straight to the cache. I would use this mapping as your main guide. Same goes for the second one. Open street map default shows a permissive path straight to GZ.

Looking at your first cache quoted, whilst it is not shown as on a footpath on google maps, if you change the map option to open street map then a footpath is clearly shown on the map straight to the cache. I would use this mapping as your main guide.

That does presuppose that thousands of people have been negatively affected by the change - which sounds a little unlikely. I think you could come up with over 2000 when you add up all the event (including Megas) attendees over the country during a year. Although I would guess that 1900 of them will be completely unaware of this situation, 50 probably don't care, 40 care but are probably willing to "suck it and see" and 10 think the world has ended.

These new additions of 20 miles OR 10 hours were to clarify a specific criteria of time or distance which would hopefully result in a more consistently applied guideline. From Post 19 - this is indeed why the criteria were introduced. But on this occasion we decided to share them nationally to avoid the first few refusals being taken personally. No, we're saying that the independent events will be allowed on the same day, as long as they are - according to the new additions - at least 20 miles / 10 hours apart. I'm a bold Reviewer. I would probably publish both of the Events as described above. The limits are either 20 miles - for events happening at the same time or 10 HOURS for events in the same area. As already confirmed by Graculus in his post 2, these values may be reconsidered at a later date. Excellent. Your confirmation that the scenario I set out would be published should put a lot of minds at rest.

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions. I think that one of the only scenarios that might occasionally fall foul of the guidelines is where there may be two completely unrelated events looking to be set by different EOs which are date/time specific and say 15 miles apart. If it is obvious to the reviewer that this is just coincidence and the EOs explain the personal relevance of the date I wonder if one of the Reviewers would be bold enough to state that they would probably allow both? I won't hold my breath.

Despite not always agreeing with reviewers and despite more than once ending up not being able to do something as I had originally planned - what you describe has never been my experience. As I said, it is some reviewers. Some are really helpful but some are just bloody minded. You must be lucky where you live. Have you got any specific situations, regarding events, when the application of the formalised guidelines spoiled or caused an event to be barred?

I suppose the event setting populous really need to carry on setting their events in line with their requirements and reporting situations where the guidelines impinge on common sense/enjoyment/the wishes of members. You seem to suggest that the position remains fluid and some amendments could be made and in the meantime event setters should carry on presenting their ideas and if they fall foul of the changes then some genuine, open consultation could be taken forward. This seems positive to me but I think we should welcome EOs that wish to discuss specific cases where some open dialogue could fine tune these guidelines.

Having read and tried to sieve out the various points and views of each of the posters both on FB and the forums surely there needs to be a re-appraisal of the original decision. Can the reviewers not proactively reconsider the position, consult with some of our more prolific event setters and maybe negotiate a consensual set of alternative guidelines to solve this issue. Maybe someone needs to be the bigger person!

What is the difficulty rating? If it is 4 or 5 it is likely that the whole idea is to make it a challenge to find a way to get it out whilst trying to be stealthy at the same time. Would a magnet on string work? Caches come in all sorts of guises and some are there to test you. Give it another go.

Do you know the cacher concerned as the note you have put on the cache suggests you might? I would have just put a polite note stating that the cache is all present and correct although one of the DNF should be deleted as it seems to include an inappropriate comment!. If you have any further problems then report the account to Groundspeak immediately.

Just click on the black Dropdown arrow next to the blue rosette and it will give you the option to add a favourite point without doing another log.

I reiterate, how can this possibly be policed. How dark does it have to be before it is designated after dark, does this change in different seasons? Is 5am acceptable if the sun is just coming up? A poor requirement in my opinion.

I think you are asking a lot of cachers to interpret your requirements here. I wouldn't consider your instructions as prohibiting a cache being looked for in the dark but more about not looking for the cache in the middle of the night. Why is the cache placed in this quiet neighbourhood where visiting could be construed as suspicious which could easily be the case during the day/dusk/dawn?

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. A note saying it will be checked on will only be followed by another boilerplate reviewer note a month later. It's like a form of harassment over a single DNF. Many of these COs are now playing the QR code game now. I wonder why. Have you got an example of where they posted a specific note confirming their maintenance proposals which was subsequently ignored by the Reviewer?

I would state that the problem here is active cachers not fulfilling the obligations of cache ownership. All the CO needs to do is confirm their maintenance plan to the Reviewer (they have had a month). They didn't need to go out in the Winter they just needed to confirm when they planned to check it out.

Yes... This ^^^ MrsB I agree with the above as well. I wonder if some contact has already been made from one of the other affected CO's as they haven't been out caching for a good few weeks now although they did visit the site yesterday. On one of the caches they found (and then the next cacher didn't find it) they actually posted a further found it log explaining where it was 'a nano 8ft up on a lamppost". A peculiar modus operandi for a serial cache destroyer?

Does anyone know whether this has been reported to the local Rights of way officer? If not then it should be, if the Rights of way officer can't be found for some reason then the Ramblers Association will take up the cudgel. I understand that both these options have been pursued (and others) but remain pending.

As far as I'm aware their request was definitely not polite. It doesn't matter how polite somebody is when they ask someone to contravene a law it still amounts to the same thing.

Never has so many false statements been quoted in one post since I have been reading the forums Groundspeak does not have enough experience of UK laws, that is why they enjoy the experience of a group of UK Reviewers to advise them accordingly. They ignored this advice! It was never suggested that a landowner would be legally forced to accept a geocache on somebody else's land only that they accept that they can't prevent a RoW being used. I do know where the cache is and the only annoyance to the person whose land the RoW crossed was that they desperately wanted the footpath to become unusable because it passed along side their property. It was the landowner annoying walkers enjoying a perfectly legal stroll. They should show common courtesy and respect to decent people enjoying an outdoor pursuit in a completely respectable and legal manner. Nobody threw UK laws in their face they were fully aware of the illegality of their actions. If they decided to start stealing the cache in question then the CO would no doubt have to consider giving in, but as that chain of events never occurred then how that situation could develop is only conjecture. I think the point about why UK citizens would want to fight for this point is well made within a previous post. RoW are very much cherished in the UK by most people that enjoy the countryside. It is likely that when the RoW was created they weren't envisioning people in brick houses trying to stop people walking from A to B so the path didn't affect the value of their property. I am sure the RoW was created for people to walk along for any reason.

The reviewer did say As I said Groundspeak will always side with the landowner. Yes I know it is illegal for the landowner to put the restriction on the RoW, but is it illegal for Groundspeak? It is after all listed on Groundpeaks site and Groundspeak does get a say on what can/should be in the listings they host. In just about all cases the landowner issue is that the cache exits and the way to resolve the is issue is to archive the cache. The landowner certainly could have asked for the cache to be archived in this case to resolve the "issue" of folks using the RoW to access the cache. But they did not, but instead asked for the restriction on the RoW, which they knew was illegal and which they knew the reviewer would not do but probably were confident that Groundspeak would require the restriction. Now that the reviewer is gone I wonder if the cache is still there and did a lackey edit in the restriction or did the cache get archived? As for Groundspeak not listening to the reviewer, I'm sure they did, but the policy of always doing what it takes to resolve issues with the landowner took precedence over any arguments. Groundspeak simply will not argue points of law with a landowner. Your first answer regarding the issue being deliberately escalate refers to a completely separate incident and not the ROW issue. Regarding your second response, you confirm that you understand that it is illegal for the landowner to put a restriction on a RoW so if Groundspeak insist on a listing on a public domain including a restriction on a RoW then this must be illegal as well. End of story! On small problem, www.geocaching.com is not a public domain, it is a private website owned by a private company. They have lots to say about what goes on their site. Still illegal.