Jump to content

FuzzyBears

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FuzzyBears

  1. Just another idea to add to the mix Get Groundspeak to add a section in the descriptions for the setter to say why they placed the cache and make it compulsory .. If it's because of a view/nice church/etc. then a picture would have to be added to the gallery to prove it ... This would stop the 'because I can' caches and help cachers to decide if they want to visit a cache. It would also raise the quality of hides because setters would have to 'sell' the cache to visitors. It would not make a lot of difference to the review process as setters would be doing a lot of the work in having to give more details of the hide area. Cachers might then be more forthcoming in their logs in thanking the setter for bring them to this great place or saying things like "great picture of the church pity you can't see it from the cache location" again giving more information to future visitors Rules /guidelines don't work, look at Church micros. the prove permission rule came in .. CMs moved out of churches... Sidetracked moved away from stations... Urban caches will become all nanos hidden up back lanes Make the setter prove the cache's worth before it is published and more thought would go into their placement This would work world wide and hopefully slow down the rise of micros thrown in a hedge... nanos on a road sign & caches obviously placed without permission How would this help with the current problem? It would make setters think more about why the cache is placed where it is and what effect it may have on it's location Move the local/UK guidelines list to Groundspeak and add them to the world rules Then when you log in it would give you ALL the guidelines/rules for your area(easy enough to do as they know where we live) but I think they should include a reason why they were added.The local reviewers could maintain these lists and no doubt still get help from local organisation/cachers As I said just an idea. At the moment the reviewers hands are tied because if the cache is within guidelines it has to be published... Make them like book publishers and then they could use their vast knowledge to weed out the ones that should never have been submitted instead of editors making sure setters have crossed their eyes and dotted their Ts (it's late)
  2. I have just come to the conclusion that we don't need new guidelines we need education ... A new cache placed today near us.... called ..... Are you being watched??? It is in the middle of a housing estate with at least 9 houses overlooking GZ the CO has given it a D3 for stealth required .. We pulled up, reversed the car into the cul de sac and saw at least two people come to the window and someone gardening watched us closely as we drove up. The houses in question are in what I would say is neighbourhood watch central nothing moves without being noted....We didn't even get out of the car. The cache description finished with "This cache meets the GAGB urban placement urban guidelines." I don't totally blame the CO... My idea of what happened... Cache is submitted .. refused because of new guideline.. CO reads new guideline and adds the "this cache meets...." line to the description.. cache re-submitted and published because it now meets the guidelines... The CO has no idea why this new guideline has been added but his nano is already OK anyway.and needs no change Only a minority of cachers read the forums and lots know nothing about the bomb scare so they will just moan about 'more rules' and continue to place caches in unsuitable locations and just add the 'magic' phrase to get the caches past review Another new cache today, in the same area, was temped by a reviewer for being too close to a playground
  3. Is there any way to ask GS if this could be added to the weekly newsletter Otherwise the first thing most cachers will know about it is when their cache review is refused because of the new guideline by which time the cache box could be already in place And as I said before Micro is the smallest 'official' cache size so 'micro or bigger' includes all caches why not 'where size permits'
  4. As some of you will know I have never been a supporter of the GAGB and could never understand what they were there for... But this week they have almost converted me... The fall out from Wetherby could have been serious and VERY far reaching and, with the reviewers, they have reduced this situation down to a reasonable level. Between them they had to come to an agreement with the ACPO quickly or very quickly a lot of UK towns could have been lost to geocaching. Just look how quickly we lost the London parks to 'security concerns' The solution is not perfect but it has given us time to work out a more long term answer In this thread a few have said that "the GAGB don't represent me" but no matter what you think, they do. As the body recognised by Groundspeak their guidelines are used to review EVERY cache listed on GC.com in the UK. When you tick the box to say you have read the guidelines you are agreeing to local laws &guidelines and these are agreed between the reviewers and the GAGB The only way this will change is for another body to PROVE they represent more GC.com members than the GAGB does. Until then the GAGB has the ball and if you are not happy with what the GAGB committee does either join and get yourself elected, help them by putting forward ideas that the ACPO will like or get enough backing to replace the GAGB The police have very wide powers under the Terrorism Acts and if they wanted to hiding caches could very quickly be included in the things the act cover and geocaching in the UK could soon be made illegal!!!
  5. Or as an add on for the avid FTFers to check no one is catching you up??? edit to say OUCH
  6. But, until Groundspeak implement "Nano" as it's own size, a Nano IS a Micro... (According to the Guidelines) I asked the same question back at post#18...... still waiting for an answer
  7. All caches DO need permission.. you tick the box to say you have it.... If you tried to get permission for a cache on a post box I don't think you would get it.. Twice recently we have been questioned by a land owner as to what we were doing on their land when we explained, they knew nothing about the caches... We removed them and emailed the owner to let them know and they archived them We need to know when we go caching that we have 'permission' to do so. Just because the cache is on a public footpath or at the side of the road does not give us the right to place a cache OR search for it. The land is still owned by someone we only have the right to use a right of way not to place a cache just off it. Caching is becoming too mainstream to continue as we did a few years ago. We will get more and more problems like this and more and more cachers will be having a serious run in with the law and caching will only suffer in the long term. If you place a cache anywhere you are inviting the rest of us to visit it please make sure we are safe in all ways to do so
  8. Thanks to the reviewers and GAGB for their swift response to what could have really damaged caching in the UK Just a minor question... Geocaching.com smallest cache size is micro... Do all caches now have to be labelled? If these are part of the UK guidelines wouldn't something like "where physically possible" be less confusing
  9. The cache was a box covered in black tape with a Geocache label on the top.... The box fitted tightly under the planter.... The cache owner had ties attached to help with retrieval ..... so if you looked from the side... from a distance... all they would see is a box with 'wires' coming from it However, the BBC Article has now mentioned that the planter was removed, exposing the cache; therefore the big green Geocache sticker was clearly on display. It's likely at that point they had already had the bomb disposal robot ready to go, so went ahead anyway. A complete waste of public money. I am very surprised that they lifted the planter off a suspect device as it could have had a pressure switch.. that's why they have the robot to 'disrupt' it before they have to go anywhere near the device
  10. The cache was a box covered in black tape with a Geocache label on the top.... The box fitted tightly under the planter.... The cache owner had ties attached to help with retrieval ..... so if you looked from the side... from a distance... all they would see is a box with 'wires' coming from it
  11. For those who missed it Edit to say just noticed who published it......
  12. You might try contacting SXParx through her profile as the Essex Country Parks have a 'geocaching' officer
  13. I would think it would be covered by the fact we all 'agreed' to the T&C when joining and that includes that we do it at our own risk
  14. going to be busy... now 1.3 Million caches in the UK ... must be right the BBC said so
  15. We can't get a word in edgeways... I do most of the planning PQs Gsak loading phones GPSr... Sue finds most and logs most Oh and she does come on the forums sometimes other than that it will be me
  16. Just an idea... we have 2 ETrex H and we only download 480 caches not the max 500 so as to leave room for 'worked out' multis and marking where you leave the car etc
  17. Nearest .43 of a miles Furthest 11651.33 miles
  18. train-spotters.. nah ...you won't have time as ALL your spare time will be taken up caching
  19. There is a gizmo that you can attach to your children that beeps if they wander off too far edit to add link
  20. Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed. Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones. I am not saying to spoil it by saying where it is but extra hints may be needed sometimes. Surely it is up to the cache setter how hard or easy the cache is.... If someone thinks it is too hard they should say so and suggest that the difficulty rating may need upping. If they think caches should be handed over on a plate let them set their own.. I might read a log to see what others thought as it can help with a search (clever hide... never seen one like this)but to be handed a direct spoiler........ Oh and no log no find if you haven't got time call again and then you have the find You have missed the point that I was trying to make. Sorry should have said 'you can encrypt logs......etc' but my point was if you encrypt a log how do I know that it contains a direct spoiler before I decode it. If the CO had wanted to tell me where it was they would have put it in their clue. To me it's just like a log saying I didn't like where you hid your cache so I moved it
  21. Depending on the location and difficulty a hint on the cache page can be invaluable so I'm with you on the first part; however it's not up to finders to decide how easy or difficult a cache should be so finders shouldn't put hints in their logs just because they think it's too difficult, and the hider would be quite right to ask for these to be removed. Thats fair enough, but if there was a way of the finder posting a hint that could be encrypted like the hiders hint that would be better for those absolute hard ones. I am not saying to spoil it by saying where it is but extra hints may be needed sometimes. Surely it is up to the cache setter how hard or easy the cache is.... If someone thinks it is too hard they should say so and suggest that the difficulty rating may need upping. If they think caches should be handed over on a plate let them set their own.. I might read a log to see what others thought as it can help with a search (clever hide... never seen one like this)but to be handed a direct spoiler........ Oh and no log no find if you haven't got time call again and then you have the find
×
×
  • Create New...