Puzbie

The best thing to do would be to contact your local reviewer and run some things by them to see what may be possible. Ok, I will do a blurb and try and get it published, and take it from there. Thanks for the help.

The reason for the agenda guideline is so that GS doesn't get into the position of choosing between any agendas, regardless of their worth or lack thereof. The text also bumps into the commercial guideline by mentioning local "businesses"; whether for-profit or for-charity. Just keep the description to the cache, and you should be good. So, that would be a no then.

I know from the listing guidelines that I cannot publish a charity cache along the lines of: Cache Name: Woodland Ramble for the Woodland Trust Cache Description: A woodland ramble with a cache located conveniently close to a collecting box for the Woodland Trust. Please give generously when you sign the log. However, what I want to do is publish a cache which encourages people to use charity shops as a source for cache swaps. I want to do this for two reasons. Firstly, it will do a bit for charity, but secondly, it will mean that people don't just put crap in the caches. You can get a good amount of low cost swappables from charity shops, and a cache filled with such content would be a refreshing change to the usual plastic junk that is the norm these days. But is it in any way possible to get a cache published without falling foul of the charity and agenda rules? Cutting to the chase, is something like this ok? Cache Name: Max Booty's Woodland Ramble. Cache Description: Woodland Ramble is a multipart trail through beautiful woodland. Max Booty caches are a cache series where the emphasis is heavy on the booty. We encourage you to visit a charity shop prior to attempting this cache, and finding something that is interesting, unusual or fun to use as a swap. This isn't a requirement for completing the cache, if you can't get to a charity shop just bring what you can, even if its just a smile! I could go on but hopefully you get the picture. Any thoughts? It isn't a charity cache as such, as no charity is named. But I feel I must do something other than moan about the current state of geocaching booty, at least in the UK.

Wow, the voice of reason. What a wonderfully well argued post this is and what a shame this sort of reasoned argument was not presented by GAGB. Please do get involved with the negotiations and bring some sense to this mess! Hear! Hear!

I think we all know about the validity of the OP. I'm perhaps a little naive here, but what's your part in all this? Your from New Jersey and yet seem to have a lot to say about Lord of the Cachers? Have you had chance to search for this series by chance? or some of the others that he set? Lets see, it appears that I accidentally fed a troll while this was still in the general forums, then I attempted to distract everyone away from that fact by posting that humans are aliens, as well as displaying poor reading comprehension. Now I am called here because somehow I put this thread on a watchlist, and I am too lazy to figure out how to remove it. Other than that, I do hope to be in the UK within a few years to find a few which look interesting! Why don't you try answering his question? And here's another question: why do you care what your NA stat is? And a third and final question: how would you feel if somebody from a completely different continent went and flagged a load of caches near your location for archiving, for no reason other than they wanted to boost their NA stats.

While I agree with the general sentiment in this, I feel it does multiparts an injustice. A decent multipart may have a fairly mundane final location through necessity. The enjoyment will be had in the journey. Virtual waypoints can take you where physical locations aren't allowed. Incidently, I too have similar cache setting ideals and have only recently taken up placing caches. I can only reiterate how beneficial you will find it if you get a heads up as to potential locations. My first cache was originally too close to the final, hidden location of a multipart. I had no idea it was there, as there were no waypoints for it. I only found out once I submitted the cache for review. My main advice though, would be to make sure you have fun doing it.

I know from personal experience that as long as it isn't MOD land, you can have a cache or a waypoint there. So it can be 1cm away from MOD land and it will be allowed, provided the OSM map says the land isn't MOD. I still can't believe how eager GAGB and the reviewers have been to enforce this "ruling", as nothing yet seems to have been officially announced or even decided. Regarding Thetford, existing caches are not affected (yet). This ruling only governs the placing of new caches. As I have said before, it is a monumental pain, as it means I cannot even include a waypoint to a parking spot if it is on MOD land. This is proving challenging to the geocachers looking for my cache.

There are some stunning caches in Cyprus, though you would be well advised to hire a 4x4 if you want to get to some of the better ones. I used the Cymps map myself.

Just so your aware, all these ground nesting birds that are/were in decline was because of human interference- changes in land use- increasing human population- lack of care. Before all this ground nesting birds managed very successfully so if this stragegy was evolutionary flawed their ancestors would have died out hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Actually, in my neck of the woods (Surrey Heath) the heathland was an entirely human construct. If it isn't actively maintained by humans and / or their cattle, it will revert fairly quickly to woodland. You can read all about it here: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/environment-housing-and-planning/countryside/explore-surreys-countryside/looking-after-the-countryside/our-work-to-manage-surreys-countryside/countryside-management-projects/surrey-heathland-project/definition-of-heathland/heathland-history The Surrey Wildlife Trust actually have a policy of destroying woodland so that they can convert it back to heathland. They then plonk a few exotic cattle on it and consider it job done. This is hardly "nature's way". I used to be a member of SWT, but resigned when they started vigourously implementing this policy and destroyed some beautiful woods. It was horrible. I am now a member of the Woodland Trust.

Actually, thinking about it, a competing UK website that ignored the CAGB would certainly be popular among people living near MOD land....

Groudspeak only seems like a big company because they pay more in tax than Google and Amazon. Possibly. But seriously, do we really need a .co.uk site? Geocaching is international. I go geocaching in the UK and Cyprus. I've even done it in Grand Canaria. Would I really want to have a separate site for each individual country? No. No. No.

Nobody I have talked to in the MOD has even heard of a ban. The local wardens don't have a problem with geocaches as long as they are sensibly placed (ie not in the middle of a firing range etc). The mistake in this case was escalating the matter. Matters like this should be kept as local as possible, so that judgements can be guided by common sense and not by attempts to cater for every possible situation on every possible bit of land. If a local land manager who knows their land, says no to a geocache, it should be left at that. We shouldn't try to go above their heads as the most obvious response we will get from that is a bigger ban.

This is clarification to my previous post re timelines: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=312162&view=findpost&p=5267016 The bottom line is that had GAGB not got involved there would not be a nationwide ban on geocaching.com

This is my understanding of the turn of events: A cacher requested permission from a local MOD manager and was refused. They contacted GAGB, who escalated the request to the MOD top brass (more likely a civil servant rather than a military type), who also refused. Once the top brass saw the head come up above the parapet they took aim and banned all caches on MOD land. GAGB alerted Groundspeak reviewers. Obviously the second point is key, I will locate my source for that and post a reference to it here, to avoid confusion. Outside of correspondance between GAGB and the MOD, I can find no knowledge of a ban whatsoever.

I had exactly the same problem when I first registered a few weeks ago. I didn't hear anything for a week, so re-registered. The second time around, I received very quick responses from a number of people. I came to the conclusion that the first registration must have got lost in the system's internal logic. You may want to investigate this as it could put off people from registering and give the impression that you are aloof, whereas in fact the opposite is the case, as I found when I actually established a line of communications.

We are back on the MOD issue because it is pertinent to this thread topic, which is partly about the relationship between Groundspeak and GAGB. I was demonstrating that Groundspeak in this instance are doing what GAGB tell them to do. With regards to MOD land, using your logic, you may as well ban geocaching in the whole of the UK everywhere. You are assuming that all MOD land is the same, when it quite clearly isn't. The local MOD land managers know this, and are happy to let common sense prevail. Unfortunately, Groundspeak aren't, thanks to GAGB.

If you post a cache which even has virtual waypoints on MOD land, it gets blocked with a message similar to this: I finally got my cache published, but I wasn't allowed to have a waypoint showing where you could park your car, as the car park was in MOD land.

Incidently, this is also misleading, as the picture caption is something like "Do not attempt to go this way". But any way, given that we haven't heard anything else from the op, are you going to remove your NA posts on the caches that had nothing to do with LOTC?

Thanks for that, I will have a look.

But is he going to go out and pick up all the old boxes? If not, then they will always be an issue, as will all the other caches that just get archived by pressing a button on a computer somewhere and forgotten about. There have been over 400 caches archived in the last seven days, quite a few of them 'enforced' archivings by our Reviewers. I wonder how many of them are now just so much non-biodegradable rubbish littering up the countryside? Is there a means of viewing archived caches without specifically knowing their name?

Just hide a film pot behind a sign somewhere and all will be fine. No it won't. Not if it or one of its waypoints is on MOD land. I finally got the cache published, incidently. I managed to find a final location near enough to the rest of the cache (it was a multi) that wasn't in MOD land. Its a nice large tupperware container with some decent goodies in it. Hopefully it won't soon fill up with a bunch of Hawkins Bazaar 25p rejects, but who knows...

If a local land manager says no, surely that should be enough. I think this practice of trying to over-rule the local land manager is asking for trouble. Is there any form of timescale to this?

In my experience of the supposed post MOD ban world, the map you have to rely on is the OS map provided by Bing. Provided it is outside of the red triangles the map uses to signify MOD land, you will be ok. Currently neither caches nor virtual waypoints can be placed within the triangles. I know this from personal experience. To date, no local land managers have heard of any ban.

Just because it will be difficult for them to find, doesn't mean it should stay against their wishes. It appears that they are very conscientious about mountain bikers affecting ground nesting birds, and that there are lawsuits by bikers, as well as concerns about them damaging wildlife. The reason the birds are at risk is because they build their nests on the ground. Personally I think evolution should just be allowed to work its magic. But I had to smile at the "unrestricted biking" reference. It never has been unrestricted. Its always been restricted to those people who pay the fees they charge you to use your mountain bike on the land. Written in jest I'm guessing? If not, I assume you're still careful if you know scarce ground nesting birds are present? I was part in jest. I do feel that any bird dumb enough to build their nest on the ground deserves what they get, provided that what they get comes from a natural source. So I would be against unleashed dogs in such areas, but would disagree with fencing areas off to protect the birds from foxes and other natural predators.

Just because it will be difficult for them to find, doesn't mean it should stay against their wishes. It appears that they are very conscientious about mountain bikers affecting ground nesting birds, and that there are lawsuits by bikers, as well as concerns about them damaging wildlife. The reason the birds are at risk is because they build their nests on the ground. Personally I think evolution should just be allowed to work its magic. But I had to smile at the "unrestricted biking" reference. It never has been unrestricted. Its always been restricted to those people who pay the fees they charge you to use your mountain bike on the land.