dartymoor

I'm over in Devon, occasionally venture across the border, but tend to go a bit lone wolf. There's a fairly active facebook group for cornwall though, and the natives are friendly. Worth asking there, I don't doubt somebody would step forward.

Hi. Answer is yes, it is.

If you only have trads in your query, then one tap will blank 'em Also I've had the sliders move by bouncing against my leg so that all the D3 and below caches on a simple trail I was following disappeared, which meant the entire series vanished. It's not the best bit of UI design, that - and the screen is so sensitive it's now happened so often it's the first thing I check when something goes awry. (And although it may not be the case in this instance, it certainly has helped a few others with 'vanishing' caches on the 650)

Check the filters haven't become disabled - it happens so easily. On the oregon - Geocaches -> Right hand tab. Bet you sizes or types have been changed by accident.

When you navigate to a waypoint, you need to change your map screen to /not/ be a Geocache dashboard. The two geocache dashboards (active and closest) only navigate to geocaches. Touch the dashed line and select one of the other dashboards or 2 or 4 fields and set those fields up. Filter - it's very easy to set these by mistake as the screen is so sensitive it can happen just by bumping on your belt. I belt some of the sliders are narrowed, or types are toggled wrongly. The 6x0 is actually a great tool. My only issue is its instability and lockups which have plagued me since day one. Still waiting for that firmware update that will make it better.

In a collection like this - especially one where somebody is monitoring its use and you feel obligated to only take one at a time, the "ugly TB" will stay in there forever.

That does look a bit rubbish. Gets plenty of visits, so folk aren't afraid to use it, but I can only guess it's at a place of work and somebody is doling them out one-per-cacher? Unlucky for the tb owners. Don't know if it's just me being unlucky, but I hardly ever find trackables now - perhaps 'collectors' like this are the reason? A cache down here in the southwest was published very recently and started life with 12 trackables. I've never had more than 3 at a time! Clearly the owner had been hoarding them so his cache looked good.

Excellent reply.

I tried both side by side this weekend and found the OS 50k ones much harder to follow, and very blurry at walking zoom. Also the caches were harder to spot against such a fussy background. Great for areas OSM don't cover, but that list is shrinking fast as many walkers and cachers update OSM and improve it when they walk an area for those to come later. Talkie Toaster 100% for me.

If his log shows it's just your TBs he's logging, definitely the above. But if he's logging an implausible amount of others too... The range of codes is really quite small and it would be trivial for any programmer to simply try all combinations at dozens a minute against the website until they hit a trackable code. I know this has been done before (from reading these forums) and unregistered codes have been activated. But... There's no real point. It would be easy to spot somebody doing this and I imagine Groundspeak would lock the account.

Selling one of my Oregon 450 gpsr's since I've bought a 650. Keeping the other 450 as a spare, but having two spares is silly. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=281162022752

For info, same thing happened to me just now. The workaround solved it, but obviously the underlying problem is still outstanding.

Bah, sorry to hear you're leaving us Ipplepen, but thank you for your caches and as well for not just archiving them. You've created some unusual and interesting geocaches over the years. Agree about Satan's Pit, even after almost two years that one's still one of if not the favourite cache I've done and I will offer to adopt it (or equally happy if somebody else does!). The same for Spitchwick which would be good to preserve and another in that area may not get permission now and it'd be nice to preserve it. (edited because I did not say "Dadgum!" as my first word! Nanny forum software...)

Have the MOD yet given maps of land they don't want caches on, or announced this ban publically and informed their employees?

From the outside, it seems the reviewers take every word said by the GAGB as fact. Ie, the MOD ban which I still don't know whether is final or not, or still being discussed, or whether it affects land used and not just land owned (despite asking five times now). All I knew was the local reviewer announced it as undergoing negotiations, then same day announced it had been done. Maybe this one point in my list is the reviewers not communicating and not the GAGB's fault at all? I don't know. Why don't I know? Because neither group seems very good at communicating. (Reviewers: I, like every else, think you do a broadly good job and appreciate it. Don't treat this as an attack or me lashing out on everyone, I'm just deeply dissatisfied with the process used to establish which areas are banned and which aren't.)

As usual I've waffled on too long. I could have just written; My confidence in the GAGB to represent my best interests is low.

I broadly agree with Happy Humphrey's views here. I also welcome the input from GAGB members. My view of the GAGB; Good things; The agreement database is very useful. It is a fairly static arrangement and I wonder how often landowners are re-approached following a ban to see if they've changed their decision, or indeed if a new landowner is in place? The phone number service I've seen in some caches for landowners to contact, and a message can then be passed onto the cache owner. Great idea. The original sentiment! Bad things; Lack of transparency, especially in negotiations. Also GAGB's lack of willingness to communicate decisions. I'm informed that this has historically led to localised bans following negotiations with people who were not the landowner and had no right to refuse caches. At least one of those bans stands today a number of years after it was imposed, the reviewers refer to it and refuse any caches there. (I refer to http://www.gagb.co.uk/gagb/glad/agreement_view.php?p=84 - and no DNPA ranger i've spoken to knew anything about it. This is a vaguely worded ban) My belief (and those of others who've approached me by email) is that it seems to have attracted one or two of the pocket-power mongers who seem to enjoy their positions of influence. Every hobby has people like this and it always causes problems. Beurocracy. Some needed, but it appears to be very formalised in structure. This can be used for a minority to gain undue influence and my impression is that is what is happening here. Quiet glee in announcing bad news? HH makes the point that the GAGB does not communicate the good news. I can't remember a single piece of good news announced in two years, but plenty of bad news. I have the impression that they are too quick to agree to bans without negotiating, and this has resulted in far fewer places to place caches. The MOD is just the latest and biggest example - and in this case, this piece of bad news may have been prompted by GAGB approaching the MOD. But the biggest problem I have with the GAGB is the apparently cosy relationship between them and the reviewers. Please jump in, reviewers, if I'm wrong - but GAGB's announcements appear to be treated as fact and any challenge (such as mine recently on Dartmoor) are ignored by both sides (one exception with a useful reply on that subject, but on others I've just been stonewalled).

^ This. GAGB - you claim to represent me and every other UK cacher, this is what you should be doing IMO.

Given GAGB's reported problems receiving a definitive map for MOD land, isn't a more pragmatic (and in my mind, realistic) solution something like; Geocaches on MOD owned land must provide proof of permission. (Including contact name/number) At least temporarily until this the MOD have made their decision and publicised it. This puts responsibility onto the cache owner and the MOD, and keeps communication channels open. I believe this would extend Groundspeak's rules about implied permission with actual permission (such as already needed for some other sites), and I believe individual area controllers have a far more realistic view of the world than a pen-pusher in some MOD white tower who may or may not be acting with full authority of the MOD, which is a massive and straggling organisation from which clear policy is rare.

<snip> Thank you, appreciate the answer. I am puzzled that you state that negotiations are ongoing, yet in the course of one day last week it was announced by a GAGB member that "This might be happenening." then "All caches are banned from all MOD land. The End." (Paraphrasing...) To those of us outside of the GAGB (yet who claim to represent me), you can imagine this was a shock as we hadn't heard of anything other than the local line by the MOD who have always been willing cooperators in this hobby. I also still await my answer, whether from GAGB or the Reviewers as to whether this ruling affects owned land, but perhaps people are waiting for negotiations to cease. Although again, from the outside, "negotiations" in this sense means "GAGB tug forelocks and 'Yes Sir, anything you say Sir'". Maybe you have put forward the best possible arguements and put our case as strongly as it could and should have been - but I've got no idea. I'm just asked to trust an organisation I don't know well to present my best interests. If the above reads like I've got an axe to grind with the GAGB, I don't. It just seems like you're the provider of bad news as a hobby I enjoy is made less enjoyable bit by erosive bit.

Five days since the last post and this thread is winding down without a satisfactory answer from Groundspeak. I certainly don't feel valued and my view is customer care stops as soon as something goes off script. I don't think Groundspeak like their customers. Amongst upper management most strongly.

Out of interest, whilst I'm patiently waiting for the reviewers to advise on whether they'll apply this to land managed as well as owned, I have a question for the GAGB. Who at the MOD did the, ahem - let's be generous - "negotiating"? What attempts did the GAGB make to authenticate that person and ensure it wasn't just a mischief maker? Or even that they had the authority to make such a decision on behalf of the MOD? (And as we've found out, it isn't publicised by the MOD within their own ranks) Does anyone have a definitive list of the land affected? (Which depends on whether it applies to land owned, as per Groundspeak's rules). Bear in mind that the MOD own a LOT of land not used for active training. I've seen Graculus's, which I've pointed out is inaccurate for Dartmoor - but that doesn't include other land owned by them - which includes areas in cities, towns, entire villages, parts of the coastline and elsewhere.

That's a good point. For the benefit of others who don't know the moor so well, Cranmere Pool letterbox is the oldest and first letterbox, first being placed as a glass jar at this site, which then was very remote, in 1854. The visitor books are kept at Plymouth Museum and survived its bombing in the last war. And if I remember the inscription inside the book when I signed it a couple of years ago (incidentally, the trip that made me decide to buy a GPS as I almost got lost in a sudden and thick fog - in August!), said that the current concrete and stone enclosure was made by MOD Cadets from Devonport. A certain irony in that.

Common land is a legal distinction, and most of Dartmoor is exactly that. Those with grazing rights over it are called Commoners and have a Commoners Council which is a truly ancient tradition. Don't think that because it is owned by somebody removes commoners rights, it doesn't, and it is correct to call it common land even though your understanding may differ from the legal title, or for all I know, common land acts elsewhere in the UK. Dartmoor is also a National Park - yet another legal distinction which not only protects land, but grants the public certain inalienable rights over it, incuding access and use for recreation, something I believe includes Geocaching. The Duchy is just one such landowner on Dartmoor, albiet the biggest. MOD is another landowner, but it does not own all the land used by the MOD whose activities are leased and managed quite tightly. This land is managed by a large number of people - the Duchy, Dartmoor National Park Authority (a council), but mostly by the commoners. Further, Geocaching's ancester, Letterboxing - started on dartmoor and is still aggressively active. Letterboxing is identical to geocaching as far as the reasons for this ban go, but no mention of it has been made nor letterboxers approached, as far as I know. I've made their group aware of this ban and their response is "Even if MOD ban boxing, we'll carry on". It pre-dates the MOD's current leases by a long time on the moor. The important thing, for me at least, is whether the Reviewers will accept the distinction between land OWNED by the MOD and land USED by the MOD. Throughout this, both Groundspeaks's rules, the GAGB and the Reviewers - AND the MOD themselves - have all consistently said "Land Owned". That is fine, the geocaching rules have stated clearly that caches are placed with the landowner's agreement. It's not possibly to reasonably argue against that. (Although I have sympathy for other MOD owned land elsewhere, and I do know the MOD own a lot of land and coastland - far more than just the training ranges - it includes housing estates, beaches, coast paths, entire villages - these implications don't appear to have sunk in yet) The affect this ban would have on Dartmoor would be mitigated hugely and I suspect most Dartmoor cachers (including myself) would quieten down and accept the MOD-owned restricted areas as other no-go areas on Dartmoor where their private OWNERS have no-place agreements already registered with the GAGB. I would like an answer from the Reviewers on whether the ban is for MOD owned land, as written by the MOD, please, so we can end speculation about the scope - this place is not the only one where it's being discussed fiercely!

Dartmoor has had letterboxes in firing ranges for many decades; it would not be fair to ban caching and not boxing, especially given caching's lower density rules. Letterboxing can't be stopped easily either, and it encourages you to look under every rock, not just at the gz as caching does. Good luck with the negotiations, gagb - rooting for you. (As pointed out, the map for dartmoor shows the firing ranges - most of which are leased to the MOD, not owned by (Willsworthy range being the exception). Whilst they may be able to persuade the Duchy who owns the land to ban on their behalf, currently they have no rights to ban caching within most of that area)