DizzyPair

The first post of this Thread informed us that “the GAGB Negotiator will reopen discussions with the New Forest regarding increasing the permitted number of caches allowed. As there is a good working relationship between the NF and GAGB, it is hoped that these negotiations will be successful”. We have seen further down the Thread that some people believe that 100 is enough. We live close to the New Forest, have found most of the caches there, and have 12 placed there ourselves. Here is our view. 100 caches in the New Forest is not enough. The Forest is not full of caches. If you consider that some visitors prefer to go to explore remote areas of the Forest, there are still several remote areas that have no cache. Some visitors prefer to ride on the many kms of designated cycle track. A long Series of caches could be placed close to these cycle tracks. Wheelchair users and cachers pushing buggies should be considered, with caches available for them. What about the Historians. You just need to look at a detailed map of the New Forest and you will see numerous historical sites that are worthy of a cache. Ok. Some of the readers will be saying “Why don’t we put caches on the cycle tracks or near the historical sites etc?”. We will if we can. Don’t forget this: The “100” is containers, not stand alone caches. So yesterday we went to the New Forest and found a Multi Cache. If the limit remains at 100 containers then there could only be 16 caches in the whole of the Forest. There is a fair mix of caches in the New Forest now, but as more people take up geocaching, they will also want to place their own caches. Do they have to wait until a current cache owner archives their cache? If the limit remains at 100 then some people will never be able to place a cache here. If the Forestry Commission is concerned about the impact that we as cachers make, then they should also consider the fact that a lot of people come to the New Forest with the sole intention of finding some caches. It is good for the Tourist industry. People come and camp in the Forest and go caching. The more caches, the more visitors. Hopefully, the permitted numbers will be increased. Perhaps the ‘limit’ could be removed. Perhaps the way ahead may be to remove the limit but increase the proximity distance to 500 metres. This would allow many more caches to be placed but spread them around more evenly. Perhaps some control should be taken over the type of cache being placed. 100 traditional caches might be better than less than 20 multi caches. Perhaps ‘offset’ caches should be used rather than multi caches with several stages. Anyway, we hope that Dave (Wombles) can get the permitted number increased. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

We have 12 caches in the New Forest. If the agreement remains at the limit of 100, then we too are willing to surrender some caches so that others can place their caches there. At the moment we will wait for the news.

OK Thanks very much for keeping us informed.

Nudge or plea, we did it. Pauline found the cache 2 years ago, so it was my turn today. We have placed the coin in a busier cache that is also near a major route, so maybe it will get going now it's been bump-started. Or should that be 'nudged'??

We'll go and get it tomorrow and will move it to a busier cache.

We have a GPSmap 60Cx. When we first started using and experimenting with it we set it to 'Battery Saver' which is in the Setup, System, GPS, Menu. This gave us an accuracy of about 15 metres in the open. Finding caches with it was really hard work! Mrs Dizzy then got a Vista HCx. This does not have the 'Battery Saver' option and usually gives her 3 - 4 metres accuracy. The 60Cx is now always on 'Normal' and it too gives 3 - 4 metres accuracy.