Moote

Well apart from my 'O' Level A, 'A' Level A, Degree, Masters Degree in Surface Chemistry, and my PHD on London Forces, I guess my chemistry knowledge stopped there.

Totally wrong, all RAF ammo cans of above 9mm usually have had a DU rounds in them, but hey what would you know, you were never in the RAF.

The key phrase, I suspect. Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject. I've nothing against your grammar. But, as HH says, the tone employed is wearisomely strident and over-opinionated. It's pretty clear that by "people with any real expertise", you really just mean people like yourself. However over-the-top the GAGB response to Wetherby (and I agree that it was ludicrous), I'm pretty sure that's the last thing they need. Yawn!

The key phrase, I suspect. Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject. I think it may be due to the fact that you tend to make rude and pigheaded statements like the above, that tends to lead people to dismiss your opinion at the start?? And Haggis Hunter never has an opinion! Pick me up, I can't stop laughing, in such a serious example I think the words were well chosen, and in the case above I only brought it in the forums at the time, as the various Caching bodies ignored the evidence I provided, they would only accept the reality of the situation once a 3rd party told them it was not on, and that all I had said was factual; that is pigheadedness of the highest order. As for rude, learn its meaning before you use the word, you might then just realize that you have been rude in here on many occasions!

No it wouldn't, for the simple reason that it is in the very nature of collective bodies to start vetoing things that they have no right, legal or otherwise, to veto. Caches in SSSIs being a perfect example; many SSSIs are eminently suitable for caching. So give me an example of an SSSI which is perfect for caching, where the introduction of a metal, or plastic container which starts degrading from day one, does note have an affect the local ecology either Geology, Zoology or Vegetation. May I take the trouble that most Ammo Cans are high in concentrations of DU, and most plastics break down into micro particles which can affect hormone production, rust from iron based containers and Aluminium oxide from Aluminium containers alter soil PH, and that has a direct and usually permanent affect, even in a very small area These bodies do not "Veto", they protect, and that way the hobby / sport can flourish as it will become more respected by the outside world.

The key phrase, I suspect. Corrected, It's sometimes hard to be fully grammatically correct, especially when you have other things going on also; so why not go and play like a good boy, until you have something constructive and important to the subject.

Personally I feel the Reviewers, Groundspeak and the GAGB are too insular, they have few people with any real expertise in various disciplines, one such inadequacy springs to mind, was the Geocache in what is probably the most serious cave in the UK. The Guidebook description reads as follows: Probably the most serious undertaking in British caving, rescue would be time consuming if not impossible None of the above was mentioned in the listing, and it also failed to mention that where the cache was hidden was highly unstable, and one small movement of a rock or boulder could bring down hundreds of tonnes of rock onto the unsuspecting Cacher, It also failed to mention that it was part of a protected area with full SSSI status. When I brought this to Groundspeak / Reviewers attention, they were not interested, the GAGB kicked me off the committee for making a fuss, which was not justifiable at all levels. This cache was archived the day that the Regional Caving body (DCA) wrote to Groundspeak telling them it had to go, and the DCA removed the cache off site. Now here are the failings of Reviewers, GAGB and Groundspeak on this occasion 1. Failed to understand the seriousness of an accident within the cave, to both the Cacher and rescuers. 2. They failed to listen to me, a Caver of around 30 years at that time, and also was involved in Regional Caving administration, but not in the DCA area admittedly. (But same rules apply nationally). 3. Over looked that the area was an SSSI with strict criteria applied to it, including entrance to the cave. 4. Failed to recognize that the placement of a cache in the area contravened rules laid out by English Nature, and the BCRA on what can and can't be left in Caves and Potholes, so as not to upset the fine balance of UK Karst geology. 5. Ignored many attempts by myself, to take in the reality of the situation, and ignored materials provided at the time which supported my claims. 6. I was told that there was contact between Geocaching and the DCA, that was a lie, the 1st time the DCA had heard about it was from me. But GAGB and Groundspeak made there own judgment and ignored reality, until the DCA became involved. I never did receive an apology from either organisation for their pigheadedness; it is time the GAGB was disbanded and a more professional body implemented, one which works with many Local and National bodies, not ignores them. As I see it now, the rules the GAGB draw up, and Groundspeak jump on to adopt, usually have no firm basis, and have little if any power, this is unlike many other sports bodies, who can actually demand many criteria are met by competitors.

HH, the BMC do make rules some of which are legally binding, as they sit on many Local, Regional and National bodies, and act within the interest of walkers, mountaineers and climbers, but not always, as their conservation role often conflicts with the members interests; but generally they give good alternatives to things such as closed footpath agreements. I would think a "New" GAGB with the power to veto caching areas such as SSSI would be a good thing, but we wait and see

Personally I avoid FireFox, as it is these days no more secure than IE, you should all change to a better browser, as an aside, Grease Monkey is one of the reasons which has added to FF being very insecure, and it is entirely possible for unsuspecting people to have major amounts of detail transferred to a 3rd party without any knowledge of this happening. It has been done, and will probably never change, as the scripts are understood by only the Tefal heads amongst us

I personally do not do accidents, they can be too dangerous, so I totally avoid them. Every cache I attend I do a full Health and Safety assessment, including full COSHH and RIDDOR survey. "Better safe than sorry" I say

At least they will be ads I might have some interest in, and facebook is just the same Not that I see ads as I use ad-block on my browsers It is easier to turn Facebook ads off as they are 3rd party, Google+ is designed to run around the Google ad servers, so turning off (blocking) Google ads might break the sites functionality. A great example of this is when you block adds in Google Android Apps, the Apps often do not function correctly, believe me they have designed this site the same in m ind, it's their bread and butter.

Searching appears OK here, although I can't find a Town field in the search criteria, have you a link to that page?

The BMC is in a similar position to the GAGB. Climbing is an activity, like caching, that can't be banned or regulated. Few climbers are in the BMC, and a lot have never heard of it. So all the BMC does is work on behalf of climbing in general; by telling landowners to allow access (I mean negotiating access), working with landowners to maintain access agreements for sensitive areas, providing guidebooks and insurance so we can find climbs and are protected from claims for damages or from expenses caused by climbing accidents. Plus, providing news and information about climbing and mountaineering (and a lot of other useful stuff). AFAIK it doesn't issue guidelines or rules, and climbers would immediately tell them what to do should they try. They are also very reluctant to help landowners with any ban, unless it's limited or temporary. I guess the GAGB do all that sort of thing as well. ;-) Not quite true, The BMC is well known in climbing circles and many climbers / mountaineers use their insurance, as the de-facto policy, especially when going on overseas trips. The BMC is a nationally recognized body by both Government, Landowners and other Authorities, it also receives grant aide in the form of Sports Council funding and from the National Lottery. The BMC has paid staff. Your claim that climbers are protected from damages or climbing accidents is not the case, like all insurance there are strict criteria for claims on damage or accidents, the main use of a BMC policy is to provide cover by emergency services outside of the UK (Mountain rescue) The BMC were key in the English OAA & OAL, this stems back to the 1930's with the mass trespass on many moors The BMC often makes policy, some of it is actually legally binding, as they work with local and national bodies on creating some of these. The BMC has a large active conservation project, which aims to protect the countryside of England and Wales. The BMC does not represent Scotland, which has its own body The Scottish Mountaineering Club. I believe that none of these functions are covered by the GAGB, in the depth that the BMC offer, and many are not offered at all. So here is my slant on the GAGB. It's a none governmental quango, which probably has now outgrown its usefulness, as it has failed to mature into a more professional organisation, by not actively seeking funding from many sources, and not becoming a full-time organisation, with at least a handful of employees. It truly is time that we made a new national body, which has aspirations along the same path the BMC have taken.

The real reason behind Google plus is to target advertise, so wait till you just start getting GPS adds on many other pages you visit.

I think that perhaps you misunderstand my point, which is simply that the rules in force for any cache are the most restrictive combination of the various sets of requirements imposed by the parties I mentioned a couple of posts ago. Additionally, if two sets of requirements are incompatible (e.g. the landowner requiring the box be camouflaged and the GAGB that it be transparent) then the cache cannot be published. However, the GAGB guidelines are just that - guidelines. So I suspect that if the landowner requires the box to be wrapped in black tape with no label and you make this requirement known to the reviewer then that reviewer might exercise his or her discretion to waive the transparency requirement for that cache to permit it to be listed. That said, the reviewer might also elect to follow the guidelines (for example, if the cache was hidden somewhere with a high probability of being found by muggles). The thing is the very people who are now setting these stringent "clear and labeled container" rules are probably the very people who have created the increase of physical caches in Urban environments, in the good old days of caching Virtual, Webcam, and Locationless caches were allowed, this gave the Urban area a realistic and workable alternative to the box on a high street. You might argue that they created Waymarking, but in reality this has trivialized the Virtual cache types, to a point where Waymarking.com it is probably just an embarrassment to Groundspeak for starting the site. I say bring them back into the main site, and forget this petty argument, as there would be less need for the Urban cache, and would encourage users into Urban heritage education, many of the new Urban caches I have done have been less than pleasing, as Dog Poo bins and Dog pee height caches on the base of a post are usually far from good ideas, and have little "Oh! that was brilliant" factor, I'm afraid to say that a new tier of placement rules will just make this situation worse. Also who says a bomb can't be in a plastic box, with clear sides, I'm sure that a metal container does not have to be involved in bomb construction, so the rule is just a farcical idea thought out in a panicked rush, In fact I often have the use of small explosive devices which are plastic encased, which are powerful enough to shatter a block of limestone, so I guess a would-be bomber could improvise a Tupperware equivalent, but far more deadly because of its increase in size. The problem with GC.com and its reviewers are they are ordinary people, who usually do not have the full knowledge at hand to make a well informed judgement.

That's not quite like how it is (at least, in theory). Of course the landowner's / land manager's wishes must be honoured. However, although a landowner can veto a cache, they can't demand one - for example, they can't get a cache published on GC.com if the area is already saturated. For a cache to be published it has to be both placed and listed on at least one caching site. There are several people / organisations involved: the CO, the landowner, the land manager, the reviewer, the cache listing service Each of these effectively have the power of veto. That is, if any of the above say "no" then the cache doesn't get published. WRT the GAGB: as I wrote previously, all reviewers seem to implement the GAGB guidelines. Thus caches that go against those guidelines are unlikely to get published. Similarly, if it is brought to the notice of a reviewer that a cache breaks the GAGB guidelines, the reviewer will likely archive that cache. IMO powers to deny publication and to archive are sufficient to be collectively called "power of enforcement". Hence, through the reviewers, the GAGB do have de-facto power of enforcement (by definition). (Edit to correct grammatical error) I think you misunderstand my point. To place any cache in the UK (Including common ground) you must obtain the landowners permission, if the landowner requests that it must be a dark box with no label attached, then you must also comply with that request, if the GAGB and Groundspeak say that is not acceptable, then they are not honoring the landowner, therefore caching would stagnate. These rules / guidelines are one-sided, and therefore counter productive, and makes these organisations appear to be dictatorial.

While the GAGB per se might not have any powers to enforce rules / guidelines, it seems to me that all reviewers implement them and so although you might be able to place a cache the chances are you won't get it published if it overtly breaks those rules / guidelines. Thus, pragmatically, the GAGB do have de-facto powers of enforcement. Unfortunately not, all cache placement is the 100% right of the land owner, not the reviewers, the landowner is the only person who can make any demand on what is placed and where it can go. Groundspeak, OpenCaching etc. only publish the cache; if Caching is to flourish and survive then GC.com, OC.com etc have to work with landowner demands, not their perceived demands.

Agreeing with smstext on the parking prices, that alone puts me off, but here are a few other reasons 1. Oxford has little if anything to do with the Olympics 2. It should be during the Olympics not before as it will then attract more Geocachers who are visiting the UK to watch the Olympic. 3. There already is an established Event which is already fully organised for this weekend, and from what I understand many Cachers will be attending that and not this event. I really think SP needs to place a little more thought into this event, it just sounds like a rushed idea, in one of those excited "Oh, I have a great idea" kind of ways.

The GAGB has no powers to enforce any rules / guidelines, the placement of any Geocache in the UK is solely up to the landowner. The GAGB guidelines are what they are just guidelines with no real meaning, as I have just said, it's a landowner right and not some body with no statute powers. Moote

Just looked and not sure it is possible :-/

I often fill in yesterday's Times crossword, by looking at the answers in today's copy, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside to know I have manage to complete it!

To be honest V7 is far superior than V6, it has a better DB engine, and there is less chance of a corruption as it is transactional, V6 and earlier there was always a chance of a none recoverable DB

Looks like they are part of the Pentagon Motor Group, so quite respected company It's my opinion and I reserve the right of freedom of speech; go you Yankees

Best not put your name in the cache then For sometime I have not logged a cache or even signed a log book, although I have now visited several thousands of them since 2006. I play it my way these days, as I do not want one person in particular to know where I have been, or anything which is ratty like! Warning: If you read this post and believe it is affecting you; maybe you have an over fertile imagination.

Not sure why you had to wonder around; surely you had already agreed with the landowner where the cache would be placed (Most probably the Local or District Council for the area). I should remind fellow Cachers that leaving a cache anywhere without the permission of the landowner is an offence of “Leaving Litter” under The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Enviroment Act 2005; this can land you in court and has a maximum fine of £2500. If you are reading the above, and you find any part of the posting offensive, it is probably your mind which is working overtime.