Lord & Lady Boogie

And so by placing a cache we are at the same risk. Does that mean we should stop putting them out and remove the ones we have out there just in case? If I didn't know better I'd think somebody has only just read the rulesguidelines. As the claim was unsuccessful, and those vampires can suck blood out of a stone, It's fair to say none will be. Do we not find caches at our own risk?

That is very true. I have seen caches that are "new" and that have the original log from the previous cache. Nowt wrong with that or listing the original CO. Good advice.

A valid point, but caches that are not being actively maintained tend towards geo-litter reasonably quickly anyway. I've found a couple over the last few weeks that are in wonderful spots but are soaked and in terrible condition. At least if they were archived someone else could use the same place. And these are a perfect example to hit the needs archiving log. If you don't want to pick up the batten, I'm not saying we should be obliged to, but neither should we demonise those who do (word a little strong please edit as applicable). I hear talk around the forums and other caching circles of great caches that exist now only because of voluntary maintenance project APE anyone?

Personally I approve ! Cache maintenance is good essential practice and while it is the owners responsibility I think we all have a duty of care, if nothing more to protect the environment. I also have a soft spot for the earlier caches I found and would not like to think them assigned to room 101 if I could have prevented it! But if a CO is not happy with this I would, if asked, undo what I have done. But for the good of the community carry on caching and well done you altruistic person you.

You mean people don't ask permission... I am shocked

I thought they were allowed to remove it - but not to dispose of it? You may have something there! Unless removal causes damage ect.

I have met many landowners and managers who know of geocaching and are OK with it. But there are some land owners managers who do not agree that the RoW should be allowed. They go so far as to make threats and intimidate users. Sad but true. I would suggest that anybody who encounters this should report them to the local authority as the are breaking the law plain and simple. However we should respect the rights of landowners even if they are nasty, if he said he doesn't want a cache that's his choice. If the cache is not on his land but near it and you put it there anyway it could be said that you are not respecting his right to peace. But he is not legally allowed to remove it, it is your property. Strangely even if a cache is on somebody's land without permission they can not legally remove it unless they have a court order to allow removal of the trespass!

Thanks again and please feel free to close this thread

I agree with HH on this. Sandy you have gotten specific with a particular GAGB guideline and I am glad you raised that particular one, but I was asking in general not specific. You have answered my question, albeit ambiguously, and am left with a partial acknowledgement that you can not answer the question specifically. I will have to accept that as the official response and I thank you again for taking the time to answer me. With regard to the GAGB urban cache guideline, that you raised earlier, it is my belief that no law enforcement agency contacted GAGB or Groundspeak through an official channel. It was in fact GAGB that made contact and GAGB that suggested a set of draconian "guidelines" that were thankfully then back peddled on to an extent. However we are now subject to extra rules that were not needed. All that needed to be done was communicate with the various agencies to educate them about geocaching. Groundspeak provide an excellent presentation for this and I am surprised this is not used. So to sum up for the benefit Palujia, who incidentally talks a good talk on free speech but covertly gags it, and friends I was asking for an official statement from Groundspeak that I got, eventually. I was asking for it because after speaking to reviewers and other cachers I was a little confused. I am a little dispirited that several posters only partially read my OP and then interjected with a response. And then scolded me like a petulant child for daring to ask! I was asking the organ grinder to comment they should have realised that.

Thanks Sandy. It was good of you to be as consise as you have. Just one last point, we do not yet live in a police state in the uk. Law enforcement is just that! If you have been informed the police have made a law you have been mislead.

The GAGB guidelines are not local laws. I thank you for taking time to answer. I pay Groundspeak a subscription not the GAGB why should they dictate the rules? I also think we are confused over the word guideline verses requirements, Groundspeak list requirements not guidelines. But taking it that the word guideline in Groundspeaks definition means requirement then the answer is simply all of the existing and any new ones that the GAGB publish. With that in mind what other minority organisations can make rules? But on the other hand if you are suggesting that all of the requirements and guidelines are only optional by adoption of the reviewers again I have to ask the question how do we know the ones that are relevant? Thanks

Gooooooooood morning geocashers! Just to update you all I have not been officially contacted. I have not officially been told that officially Groundspeak in USA say that GAGB are not rules. I have also not been told that unofficially it is suggested that if a reviewer wants to use them as rules to be punitive that is up to them. So there we have it that's about as official as I can get... by not being told officially

It is working OK for me, I like the new scrolling view and the friends logs. Thumbs up Groundspeak on this one for me . Mind you I bet third party apps are broken

They are merely guidelines. However some permissions have been sought from landowners where the full GAGB guidelines have been negotiated into those permissions granted. Meet all the GAGB guidelines that you can or all of them when necessary. Thanks for the reply, although I was looking for official confirmation from Groundspeak as at present it is a little ambiguous (officially speaking).

Can somebody Groundspeak please confirm which of the GAGB guidelines have been officially adopted as placement rules? I am a little confused because the requirements that are listed on the Groundspeak site do not state them. From some conversations I have had with other geocachers and some reviewers there seems to be a disparity. It seems that some of the reviewers apply all the guidelines as rules, some apply a few of them but nobody can confirm (until a cache is submitted for review)the ones we need to follow. Thanks

I do not like the idea of blocking the channel to UK residents. I have not yet viewed the spoiler channel but have viewed some of the US ones and like a resource to interesting and novel caches. It would be a shame that's all. Sven, I can see other peoples point of view on the semantics as it does appear you are being typically Sir Humphrey with it Still the point in question, what does the community think is reasonable when posting spoilers (clearly labelled as such)on the interwebs?

I also agree with this. It seems to me, that what it comes down to is a couple of people wanting (needing) attention. First, the CO with his blog (making fun of everyone in the forum), complaint (just to cause controversy), and permission. Second, the OP with his need to bring this to the forums, making it obvious that he just wants more attention and views, and creating more controversy. I think these two have a problem with each other and they've pulled everyone, including Groundspeak, into a needless argument. I don't agree the argument is needless, a great deal has been discussed and faults with all parties have been identified. I do agree that a number of people have an agenda and have used us all to their ends, but hey it's up to us to listen and join in right?

Thanks for the reply, but you miss the point. The point is that the TOU have not broken, the CO had given permission for the spoiler to be posted, maybe posthumously but at least given. It then transpires that "somebody" complained to GS, that can't be the CO in question because that would just be stupid as he has given permission. This is besides the fact that the video in question does not actually spoil anything. My point, not very eloquently put, is that GS appear to be acting beyond their own TOU as a sort of revenge for standing up for your self. IN MY OPINION! comments welcome

I don't think so. I think they are saying that they have the right to control whether you can use their resources, based on what you publish anywhere. You're still free to publish whatever you want wherever you want. They're free to deny you access to their resources. At their whim. Could you also be in favour of apple revoking your right to use the iphone just because they decided to day it was your turn for the big stick? Not sure how it is in the Kingdom, but here in the colonies freedom of speech only applies to the government limiting free speech. In the case of a private enterprise they are free to limit the speech. They own the enterprise and they get to set the rules. Naturally if a person is outside the US and posts something to a website there is not much GS can really do about. But they can elect to ban that person from their site. It make seem like it is limiting free speech but according to our constitution is is not. Look at it this way, the [insert political party here] website is not required to discuss or provide a forum for members of the [insert opposing political party here] to discuss their points of view. They are free to restrict and prohibit the opposing point of view discussion. Now if the government were to state and prohibit the discussion, then, yes, that would be limiting freedom of speech. Thank you. I was going to suggest to Lord Boogie that perhaps he/she should actually read through the Constitution sometime. Ok, so I can only speak from my little islands point of view. Didn't realize that free speech is not available to Americans. Do you have any comments re the iphone analogy? Oh,if you can post a link to a PDF (as long as you have the owners permission, wouldn't want to entrap you into some sort of law suit) of the constitution I'll have skim though it tonight. Like I said flame away!

shenanigans I love that word!

Long live Oceania.

I don't think so. I think they are saying that they have the right to control whether you can use their resources, based on what you publish anywhere. You're still free to publish whatever you want wherever you want. They're free to deny you access to their resources. At their whim. Could you also be in favour of apple revoking your right to use the iphone just because they decided to day it was your turn for the big stick?

***WARNING THIS IS A 2 CENTS PRODUCTION*** spoilers, right or wrong is no longer the issue. I live near the OP and have spoken to him a few times in our local geocaching forum (online not in person ), agree he does not like to be wrong (who does?) and so far has not been convinced his opinion should change, neither have I. Now GS is involved and IMHO (risking a ban probably) is flexing a "Big broher" muscle. It may interest to know that the CO who may have complained did change some of the cache page wording after the initial exchange to omit certain detail that "spoilt" the cache location. This is now a question of free speech: People died and do die everyday for the right to freedom of speech. Many band together in the face of larger and stronger opposition to uphold the notion of freedom of speech. What may have passed may not be cricket but GS to be an out an out bully is not on (that's how I see it). I say do not impose a ban, but it's your business GS, your dollars rolling in you look after it how you see fit. Flame away!!!

OK 2 cents coming in. I like walking + I like caching = I love power trails I have four geokids that are hard to keep happy while walking so a power trail is a good balence for us. On the other hand I like intersting caches, tough caches extreme caches and multi caches, but I don't really like puzzzle caches. There are aome very hard puzzle caches in the Midlands area and so far I have avoided them... I have also avoided slating the CO of these because it is their choice to place my choice to find. I can see both sides of the argument but can not agree with some of the NIMBY / Elitest statements, this is a game to have fun not life and death. My eight year old twins can quite easily manage an eight mile power trail but some of my friends can not, that dosn't mean it is impossible! Just as Poshrule can, for the moment at least, manage to look after the caches. I have a small round of sixteen and find it very hard to keep on top of those but I don't for one second judge another by my yardstick. It seems to me there are lots of different people wanting different things out of Geocaching and I think thats great. If you have a problem and want the CO to remove a cache then ask, just as you would ask any friend or neighbour if you had a problem with them. And please remember not to judge a man until you have walked a mile in their moccasins.