Deceangi

No and I'll explain the reason why. The Captain is the Local Manager, and as such is required to follow the Instructions of Senior Management. Even though they appear not yet to have filtered their decision down to Lower Management, Senior MOD Management have placed a Ban on caches on MOD Property. By allowing Geocaching, the Captain is unknowingly at present, placing himself in conflict with Senior Management. The UK Reviewers, having had the decision of Senior MOD Management made aware to us, have to comply with that decision. The only option is for the Captain to obtain a exception, off his Senior Management. The Royal Parks, used to give permission, at a local Management Level, and did so for a large number of years [in fact a member of the Grounds Staff, had a number of caches in Royal Parks, with Local Management Permission]. A decision by the Local Manager of Greenwich Park, to Ban Geocaching, was appealed to Senior Royal Parks Management. Who after negotiations, decided to completely Ban Geocaching, in "All" Royal Parks. Despite the amount of evidence going back years, that there was no issues with Geocaching in Royal Parks. And required the Removal of "all" caches within Royal Parks, which meant over ruling the decision of the Local Managers. This is not the only isolated cases of Senior Management, over ruling decisions taken by Local Management, who are better placed to make day to day assessments of the impact the Geocaches are having. I can cite a number of such cases, including those related to Wildlife Trust. Deci

The Ban applies to "ALL" MOD Properties, the KML file was created by Hand, so is not complete. to have a complete file. The MOD will need to provide the data. Deci

If after the negotiations between the GAGB and the MOD have been completed, and the Outcome is that the MOD will not allow Virtual Waypoints on their Land. Groundspeak's Volunteer UK Reviewers, will have no option but to comply with that, And would refuse to accept any cache Listing with any Virtual Stage on MOD Property. As we are required to fully comply with all requirements set by a Landowner. Landowners do not differentiate between Physical Waypoints and Virtual Waypoints, all they see is a waypoint on a cache page, which is on their Property. But until we have a Final decision, we are just discussing "what ifs" Deci

Yes, I thought it might be significant; I'm just not sure what it really signifies. I liked the video though. It was a April Fools joke, the time line for Geocaching, even though it had no name back then is May 1st 2000 President Clinton announced the switching off of Select Availability, this was the scrambling of the Civilian GPS signal May 2nd SA is switched off, and Civilian receivers are now accurate within 30m/40m, as opposed to the 150m/200m error previous due to SA May 3rd Dave Ulmer puts out the very first cache, and posts the coordinates on a Chat Board, and Challenges people to go and find it The Publication date of April 1st 2000 was designed to be a give away clue. Given that it was a month before the First cache was hidden Deci

Clarification to clear up misunderstanding CITO Events and Geocaching Events, are two totally separate things, with totally different ethos, and as such they are treated as different entities when being Reviewed for Proximity Locational and Time wise. CITO Events, the whole ethos is to bring Geocachers to a specific location, to have a positive impact environmentally. Geocaching Events whole ethos is to bring Geocachers together to discuss Geocaching and Swap Trackables. As such a CITO followed in close proximity location and time by a Geocaching Event, is acceptable However two CITO Events in close proximity, location and time wise, would not be published. As being the same event type, they would be considered to be Stacked. The same with two Geocaching Events in close proximity, location and time wise, would not be published. As being the same event type, they would be considered to be Stacked. As a rule of thumb [so not locked and nailed down] is either One Hours Driving Time, by Google [which is a universally accessible resource] between events. With no way to short cut that as a Pedestrian. So 2 events on either side of a River, with over a hours drive between them, but a Pedestrian bridge/tunnel crossing the River, would not be published. or 24 hours separation if at the same location. The exception to this being a Mega Event, where a event the previous evening/ following morning would be listed. As again it's 2 separate Event Types, with different ethos. At the end of the day Reviewers are Human, and make mistakes. provided that they admit that when a mistake is pointed out, there is no issue. It is when they deny that, that there are issues. Personally, I've lost count of the number of times, I have over the last 7 years, put my hands up and said, yes I made a mistake. And some back history, originally CITO events had a Clean Up part and a Get together part. The standard was if you attended the CITO part you logged a "Attended" and if you just went to the Get together, you logged a"Find" [back then you could log a Event as Attended or Found], doing the second showed that you had not attended the CITO part, even though you still got the icon. Groundspeak when they removed "Found" logs from Events, created a situation where people simply attending the Get together, were not being differentiated from those who had done the clean up. Which lead to the current model of CITO Events followed by a Geocaching Event. If you now log a Attended to the CITO, you actually attended that, so it is clear who has not attended the CITO, but has attended the Get together. Deci And on a personal note. The whole purpose of a Flash Mob, is to suddenly congregate at a location, and then after a set period to disperse, each going their own individual way! So why hold a Flash Mob, if your just going to relocate around the corner to the local pub? It's just a case of meet at the location of the Flash Mob, and continue that in the pub. No way is it 2 separate events, unless Smiley Stacking. And dragging that into events is sad Dave

But in those days power trails like that weren't allowed Going way back to 2006 I'd have happily published a 5 mile circular trail of around 10/12 caches, because it would not have meet my own personal definition of a Power Trail. I can remember only ever applying the Power Trail Guideline once, before it was dropped [which was due to the fact, no one could actually define exactly what a Power Trail was. Some had the opinion it was multiple caches at 0.11 miles, and others at 0.25 miles]. It was a single cache to which I applied the Guideline, because it was placed to join up a group of 4 caches, which varied from 0.11 miles to 0.25 miles and a group of 5 caches with a similar spread. The cache in question being 0.11 miles from the last in the group of 4, and the same distance from the first in the group of 5. I believe that the reason Circular trails where not put out, is that the concept had not really been thought of way back then, not the Power Trail Guideline. The ET Highway did meet my own personal definition of a power trail, caches in succession at 0.1 miles. If Groundspeak had defined the Guideline at 0.1 miles, you'd have seen the ET Trail at 0.11 miles to get around it. Whatever distance would have been used, trails would have gone out at 0.01 over that distance. I can remember spending 4 solid hours reviewing the Chiltern Hundreds series, all 111 caches, and not believing that it was a power trail, and yet it is not a circular trail either. There are a number of High cache trails out in the UK, which are not circular, but Linear Trails, a concept which seems to becoming more popular. Give modern transport links, and a little bit of planning. And personally in 2004 [before I became a Reviewer] I can remember standing at a Event I'd organised with North Wales FC, explaining about Geocaching to someone. And mentioning to this person that, the first UK cacher, had just recently reached 1,100 finds. Only for that person to reveal his ID, yes I'd been explaining Geocaching to Seasider himself. Way back then he was on a Sabbatical, and cached every day. Each night he planned with military precision, his next days caches. And I believe his busiest day was only 25 caches [ I imagine today if he was still caching, he'd be doing 200+ per day ] Deci

As requested posted on the GAGB Forum, it is up to the Committee and Membership, if they move forward with the idea. Deci

Matt the Reviewers can only give you 2 totally different replies, one as a Reviewer, and a different one as a Member As a Reviewer so "Officially" representing Groundspeak, we are required to apply Groundspeak's instructions. And that is the container remains the property of the owner at all times. And as such we can not request anyone other than the Owner, uplifts the container. I personally have made requests for Trackables to be Uplifted from caches, I believe will not be Published, or Uplifted by the Owner, as the Trackables remain the property of their owners. But I have to make it clear, that the request is only for the Trackable. What the person does with the container, is not something I ask about, or want to know. As a Member so not "Officially" representing Groundspeak, but simply voicing my own personal opinion, I am free to express a opinion. And that is I would like to see a system put in place, where 6 months after a cache has been Archived [or whatever name is used] from "All" Listing Sites. A volunteer goes out to check that the container has been uplifted. To this aim, a Points system is set up, 1 point for physically going to check, where a Owner has not confirmed that the container has been uplifted. 3 points for actually uplifting a abandoned container. At the end of each 12 month period, individuals scores are tallied, and the person with the highest amount of points per Region and for the UK as a whole is awarded a Badge for their profile. And possibly funded by donations, a Trackable, or other Geocaching related prize. This is a Project that would be suitable for the GAGB to run, with Volunteers co-opted by the Committee, to run the project on their behalf. If the GAGB was to take this one, I'd personally be happy to make donations to fund prizes such as Trackables. I know not really helpful, but as stated, Reviewers represent Groundspeak, who are the ones who set Policy. As Members we are free to suggest Policies. Deci

No one expects any action off the Police, other than recording a Crime which has taken place. This was advice actually given by a Police Officer, when a query was made to them. By creating a report, you create a History, for future reference.If we take the average value to be around £3, there is one Group who openly admit on the cache page, that they have trashed and stolen caches. who if you take into account the value of the Trackables they also have acknowledged stealing. To have taken property to at least the value of £500, possibly more. The creation of a Official History of all their thefts, if they are ever caught, means instead of being chargeable with theft to the value of £3, there is a history of their actions to point to. And no one is saying to report every missing cache, just those where there is clear evidence, that it has been stolen. If you have personally not been targeted by the Group referenced above, you are one of the lucky ones. Others have had a number of their caches stolen, and the group admitting this on the cache page. Several have lost property, with a value over £100, due to the number of caches they own, having been stolen. Deci

This is exactly what I'd call the common sense approach, if the sandwich box you left under a tree is stolen/trashed/eaten by wild dogs/whatever it's the risk you take when you leave it there. Others seem to disagree, as described in the sticky at the top of the forum (link) where the advice includes, among other things, "If you find this person (or persons) has stolen either your cache or your trackable from a cache you should contact your local police and report it as a theft. Explain what geocaching is and that the cache container/trackable is your personal property and make sure you get a crime report reference number." I really struggle to see how it's anything other than a waste of police time to report the theft of a sandwich box under a dead tree however much the people responsible might be spoiling our fun. If the cache container is broken resulting in the contents getting wet and mouldy then it's even more of a waste of time. That said if police advice is that removal of a cache container is considered to be theft (as the sticky thread says) on the basis it was placed there deliberately rather than abandoned, it does raise the question of when a deliberately placed container can be considered to be abandoned and removed without legal ramifications. I think it's silly that the police are involved in what seems to me to be nothing more than a squabble between rival groups, so I'd personally be disinclined to make a public statement that I'd removed and destroyed what could be identified as someone else's private property whatever the state of it. The Post your referring to, was posted to specifically help deal with, Person(s) unknown. Who openly admit in their logs, that they have trashed and stolen the containers and contents. Including any Trackables they find. They actually acknowledge that they are stealing the container, in their post. Deci

Just for the record, all third party apps that use the Groundspeak API require premium membership to use, including C:geo. I've just had a look at Groundspeak API Partner Page and that program is not listed, which means it must still be Screen Scraping and not accessing the API at all. Meaning that it is not a App Licensed to access GC. Deci

I've posted a link to this topic, on the North Wales Face Book group, as it will get more attention there. As there are more local cachers who hang out in there, than on this forum Deci

I was included in the loop, due to the IoM cache, so knew which other countries were included. The IoM was a surprise, Manx Natural Heritage, which is a Department of the IoM Government owning the cache was a shock. So I was in a position of not missing Scotland was included It must be the Magic Water drunk on the other side of the Border (well 2 Borders for me ) that is attracting Geo Tours. So come on England and Wales, you need to pull your fingers out Deci

Actually it is the second one in the UK the First in Scotland, links with Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands, and also The Isle of Man and went live 8th November if I remember correctly it was the First European and also First Trans National Geo Tour. Thing Site Geo Tours It seems Geo Tours are becoming Popular in Scotland The Manx one, is a official Geocache by Manx Natural Heritage Deci

So as it's a consensus that Historic Welsh Counties are used. Does Flintshire get 2 It is unique in Wales and Possibly the UK. In that the Historic County is in two non contiguous parts . The majority covering the area currently designated as Flintshire today. However there is a small part separated by Denbighshire, located on the other side of Modern Day Wrexham You could call them Big Flintshire and Little Flintshire Deci

Sorry but if I'd reviewed the cache, I'd have bounced it straight back to you as well. You have used major metal stakes, which you personally hammered into the ground, having sneaked into a National Park (a status which I'm guessing gives it more legal protection?) to hide what you were doing. So avoiding Park Staff from noticing your activity. So a issue there to start with, you then break the Buried Guideline, with those metal stakes, so a second issue. You do not appear to have made the effort to communicate and work with your local Reviewer, who could have made a number of suggestions, on how to rectify things to get the cache published. So a Third Issue. Having then not gone through the Reviewer/Cache Owner discussion process (something which is highly affective, because if you work with your local Reviewer, that person will work with you to get issues resolved), you appear not to have gone to Appeals, again something which can be highly favourable to the Cache Owner, despite what some will claim. I've seen Appeal overturn decisions made by Reviewers, which were not borderline, but gave a exception to a Guideline, something Appeals can do, but Reviewer can not. So issue Four. Instead of following the above, you dive straight to the forums, expecting the community to rally around you. Only for community consensus to side with the Reviewer. Personally I've been a Reviewer for nearly 7 years, and have Published over 45,000 caches, several of those involved major back and forth between myself and the Cache Owner. But in the end we got the cache Published. Only because the CO, was prepared to work with me, to resolve all issues. One case of a Muggle, relocating a Container over 70 miles, and submitting it as a new cache listing. Involved it moving from the Irish Sea to the North Sea to the English channel (I'm in the UK). But by steadily working with this person, over a large number of emails, I finally tracked down the new location, and which cache it was. And managed to reunite the container with it's owner. Another case of working together to resolve issues. One email simply stated "behind the War Memorial" there being thousands of such in the UK. But with patience and continually working together we resolved things. Personally I consider it the greatest Geocaching Puzzle I'll ever solve Working with your Local Reviewer, despite rejections, will eventually get your cache published. Remember Reviewers are cachers, who want to go out and find new caches. So it is in their best interests, to work with you to get a cache published, however long, and however the amount of communication between you both. Work with the Local Reviewer and they will work with you, work against the Local Reviewer, and then don't expect them to put in their unpaid free time, to help you. It has to be 2 sided to succeed. When Additional Waypoints first came out (they were made Mandatory in the UK in June 2006, with the backing of Groundspeak), I swapped around 10 emails with someone who was struggling to create one. I eventually sat down, and wrote out each stage as I created one. I then emailed this to the person, and hey presto the issue was cracked. The person kept communicating with me up to that point, so working with me, to try and resolve the issue. That was time well used up, because it ended in a cache being published (even though it was over 200 miles away from me, so the likelihood of me ever finding it was remote, I still got the warm fuzzy, from knowing "we'd" resolved the issue). Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer

Sorry but there is a huge difference between the cache in question, and a tent stake or a piece of wire with a item attached to it. The 2 are not the same, in any sort of way. So sorry, but pushing that into the ground, would not meet the Guidelines. A tent stake/piece of wire is a couple of mm thick, the cache being discussed is cm's thick. There is a huge difference. The change in wording was to allow the artificial grass type hide, where the piece of wire is pushed into the ground to support the container, which is "above" ground. So pushing a a Bison into the ground, would fail the Guideline. You are of course free to obtain individual clarification in regards to the above off Groundspeak. And to make it very clear, what Geocaching Suppliers sell, might not meet the Guidelines used by Geocaching.com. So just because you see them for sale, does not mean they will be published on Geocaching.com. What other Listing Sites allow, is down to each individual Listing Sites, just like any potential issues with Landowners created by those hides, are down to those individual Listing Sites. Deci

I believe you'll find a major part of the reason is that Major Landowners, especially in the US. Were Banning Physical Caches, pointing to Virtual Caches and saying, see you have no need of a Physical Container. This resulted in large areas being put out of bounds, to Geocachers. Code Word Caches have been allowed in the Past, one issue which people seem to miss is, if the CO ignores the email, or deliberately blocks the Person Making the Find. Due to a disagreement between the 2, then it creates a huge mess for Groundspeak, who get dragged into the middle of a personal argument between 2 people. You only have to look at the number of cachers who have major personal issues with other cachers here in the UK for a example of that. Signing a Log Book as Proof of Finding, remove personal conflict between people. Also just like Puzzle caches, there are those who will just pass over the solution, or even worse, post the solution/coordinates on a Personal Website and yes that does happen. Making Proof of Find by Code Word useless, as actual Proof of Finding. Geocaching at it's core is Hide a Container, and post the details, others to go find that container "sign" the log book, and write about your experience On-Line. Anything else is not actually Geocaching, it is a sub game. Groundspeak decided to go back to the Core Principles of the Game, and allow others to play Sub Games. Deci

Erm well firstly Chris I dont believe I was trying to be helpful. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to help and had failed. No in fact I was going for heavy irony Whilst I appreciate some of the jobs that reviewers do its not my fault if some get criticised. A role such as yours carries both light and dark. If that is not palatable, well you could always un-volunteer. Shame you didnt notice my comments about Red Duster and comment on those as well as my unhelpfulness. Ah well, no problem And factually I actually pay for access to geocaching. So that enables a site like this, which you enjoy being a reviewer on, to exist. And secondly it is far easier to show common sense than winge. Common sense would be to post the whole email here. You obviously have access to it. But wont. No instead its far more helpful and colleague like, to ignore the common sense approach/request and draw more attention to the fact that there was "some more information added". As a rule Chris I tend to lean on the side of helpfulness and cooperation but I will point out where common sense is being ignored with carefree abandon when it impacts on me. Such as reading this forum. And if you dont like it feel free to email me or even meet me at the next event we attend and discuss it in person and in more depth. MORE than happy to do just that. I indirectly know you Chris and understand you are a "brilliantly nice bloke", but please remember you are dealing with adults. And adults tend to follow their own wants and needs and annoying as it may be they will rile against being patronised. Best Wishes As the Reviewer who was given the task of actioning the initial List provided, which was all based on the Big Box Little Box series, which the cache which caused BT to take their stance was part of. I was copied in on the email received by Groundspeak. I was not the main recipient of it. And as such I nor any of my Colleagues have Permission to post the email to a Public Forum. And even if I had been the original recipient, I would have still obtained the Permission off the Sender to do so! So as you have been advised, contact Groundspeak who were the Original Recipient of the email, and ask them to publicly release it, presuming they obtain permission off BT to do so. Or better still contact BT and inquire off them as to why their Ban on Geocaching! BT stated that there was "Regulatory" reasons in regards to the Ban. They did not elaborate on that point. But as the Owner of the Properties affected, they are fully within their rights to Ban Geocaching, on their property. And as such we have to comply with that, whatever our opinions are. So if you would like clarification in regards to the "Regulatory" reasoning behind the Ban. Please contact BT directly and as for a Full explanation. Deci

Sorry but the Geocachers in NI from both sides of the Political Spectrum, one side who used to List caches under the UK, and the Other who used to List them under Ireland. Were happy with the set up when it was applied. Given that there is now no confusion about where caches are Listed, and the Local Community are happy, then Politics has been taken out. And they have a Win Win Situation, and that is what counts at the end of the day. The only people who do have a issue, are those who do not Live there, or have just started the Hobby, and are not aware of the past history of confusion (run a PQ in Ireland and get some caches, but not all in NI, alternatively run a PQ in Scotland and get some caches in NI but not all, it was even worse for Visitors who missed out on caches in their PQ run for their visit) The screen Grab was taken from the Original GE Overlay, with the Original Designation of Yorkshire and Humberside. Humberside being dropped as it was causing confusion. Deci

Ok education time Travel Bug, is in fact solely the Metal Tag, with the Trackable Number and TB icon on it. Hitchhicker is actually the Item attached to the TB tag, with the aim of Travelling with it. It helps that I became a cacher in 2002, and the Term Hitchhicker was in use back them Deci

Here is a very brutal thought, Do we wish to see the death of another UK Cacher, whilst out Physically Geocaching, because of the Location of the Container? Even worse do we wish to see a innocent person(s) killed, due to a unthoughtful Geocacher? The Reviewers do not take into account "personal safety" when Reviewing a Cache Submission, because it is down to each person to make his/her own assessment. So even if the cache is in a dangerous place, such as "under a bridge", the person having taken into consideration of their own safety, falls and kills themselves. The Reviewer has done due diligence. So sadly in the case of Ewan-Billy Twiggers cache, where he had his serious accident whilst placing. Which for those who do not know, was 12ft up a Rock Face, Ewan fell backwards and landed on his kneck, breaking his vertebra, he spent several years in Hospital, in and out of a Coma. And was a Permanent Quadriplegic. I would have happily published that cache submission, if it had come into the queue. Because It is up to each Individual Geocacher, to make their own H&S assessment before attempting a Cache. However when a Geocache or Geocacher puts "At Risk" others, who have no idea what is going on. So have not taken their own H&S risk assessment of the situation happening in front of them. That is a different situation completely. Now your not only putting your own safety a"At Risk" after careful consideration, by your very actions your putting others "At Risk", and that is not a acceptable situation. The Met Agreement and Wetherby Incident were created by the action of Geocachers, luckily no one was harmed in any way. But it was the actions of the persons involved, not the Containers themselves, that caused both! Or how about the Gentleman caching with his young daughters, who basically got accused by a Stranger of being a Paedophile! Again because of the Perception of his actions, not fitting the "Norm" So we have a Cache in a Unmarked RoW, in the middle of a highway. The high chances of a Driver ever seeing someone use it will be so slim, that even though they see the warning signs on a daily basis, they will blank them out (there is a similar type of crossing, near where I live, I regularly use that road. And have yet to see anyone use it). So all of a sudden whilst passing another vehicle at 70mph, they do not see what would be expected to be seen. A Pedestrian stood in the gap in the Armco Barrier, waiting for a safe gap in the traffic. But someone feeling the inside of the Armco Barrier (which is back to back, with no gap between, in which a Pedestrian could Stand). The person suddenly over reaches (maybe because their searching the wrong side of the Gap) and falls into the Lane and in the way of the on coming Traffic. Even if the cacher is not hit by a Vehicle, the subsequent carnage would be disastrous. And it is the risk of that sort of situation, involving Drivers on one side, and Rubbernecking drivers on the other side, involved in a secondary accident . Which is why the Cache Location is not suitable, nothing to do with the safety of the Cacher searching for it. One of the hardest lessons for a New Reviewer is, "we do not take into account the risk to personal safety!" So however dangerous the location is, that is not our concern, however the safety of others, not taking part in our hobby, due to the actions of a Geocacher, has to be taken into account. For the Future of our Hobby. As some of the longer term members will testify, I've personally Published some extreme Geocaches, 2 examples were Tribute to 2 of my Colleagues who resigned April 2008. In fact I even got complaints about them, the person stated that they should not be in their locations, as it was extremely dangerous to access them. Note that was dangerous for the Geocacher, my reply was that as it was up to each Geocacher to make their own H&S assessment, and if they were not happy to walk away. And that either was not presenting a risk to Non Geocachers. So to recap, there are enough examples of the actions of Geocachers, causing major issues, without the actions of Geocachers causing the death of someone not involved in the hobby. Dangerous Locations to the Geocacher are fine, as each makes his/her own H&S assessment and either goes for it, or walk away. Locations where the actions of a Geocacher, present a danger to Non Geocachers, is not acceptable. Anyone looking for Kudos, by owning a Cache in the second type of Location, has no care for either the Geocachers Searching for their cache, the Non Geocachers put at risk. And more importantly, has no care for the future of the Hobby in the UK! I have had to deal with the loss of a number of UK Geocachers, the worst case being that of Ewan, but non of them were easy to deal with on a personal level. I hope and pray, that neither my colleagues or myself , have to deal with the aftermath of the Death of Non Geocachers, because of the actions of a Geocacher(s). Because not only would that be devastating at a personal level, it would be devastating for the Hobby in the UK! So before you come out swing at me in support of the cache and it's location. Please think very carefully about the above. And whether you wish a Long Term Future for the Hobby in the UK! Because that is what the UK Reviewers face, keep the community happy, or look to the future of the hobby. The 2 are not mutually the same. We are no longer the Underground Hobby, some still seem to believe we are, and huge changes are the result of that. Deci PS: I want to see Geocaching thriving well into 2300 onwards. Do You?

I think that this log was the point of contention. I certainly looks like it's at risk! Although appears that the reviewer has today realised his mistake and posted another note. There's no apology so he seems to have forgotten his earlier mistake. Apologies to Deceangi for putting him on the spot. Someone who was not confrontational, or having a dummy spat. Contacted me privately with photographic proof of where the container was located. So made the effort to work with me, and not attack me (and please note, that is not aimed at HH), and allowed me access to proper information re the hide. After I had posted the first log, Amazingly the Cache Owner (who is believed by many in the NW to be a Sock) never once contacted me to point out the actual location of the container. I'm also aware of one BBLB which is located behind and away from a BT Phone Box, but I've never been contacted by the owner confirming the actual location of the container. So with some where I could not 100% confirm that the container was not On/in a BT Phone Box, I have had to treat them as being covered by the Ban. But would be grateful if provided with proof confirming the opposite. And not rants on the page, when I've posted a reminder, or after the Owner has Voluntary Archived the Listing to comply with the Ban. Sadly a small number, who do not agree with the decision made by BT, have decided to be confrontational and rant on the Cache Pages. Given that I was give the List and did not create it originally. So posting Rants on the Pages, will not help any attempt in the future, to get BT to reverse the decision Deci

The Initial List of BT Phone Box Caches, so the ones BT know about, from a search of the Big Box Little Box term, are the ones being actioned. And sorry that one is not "Not at Risk" because it is confirmed as being on a Post Box! I went through the List provided, and clearly identified those on Post Boxes, which unless the Post Office take issue to. Are not currently a issue. If in the future BT become aware that caches are Listed in/on their property using different series names, and provide a detailed list of those series. They will be treated in the same way, because BT are the Landowner, who have clearly made it known to Groundspeak that they do not wish any cache to be placed in/on their property. The series was not Archived immediately, as normally happens with a Landowner Complaint. Instead they are dying a natural death, as they come in need of maintenance. Deci

The whole competition is about Photographing a Minelab Geocoin So whilst a Metal Detector Manufacturing Company is sponsoring the competition is based on a Geocaching Activity Geocoins, not digging up the ground to find bits of metal. And participants get a "Free" Geocoin to boot. Plus from past experience, the majority are just going to end up in peoples collections, or on Ebay. Just Look at the different Jeep Promotions, or the 2 separate Diabetes promotions, or even the Garmin Geocoins Promotion. The number of those which ended up on ebay was huge (and they were given out for Free) Deci