Deceangi

My understanding is that Phone Apps do not access the Site through the Portal, which trips the Last Visit Date. Instead they access via the API, which uses a different route, and does not trip the last visit date. This is something which has been known for a extended period, and why Reviewers will generally check the Last Find Date made by the account as a better indicator of activity. Where the account appears not to have logged on for a extended period. In many of those cases, the 2 will match up. In the case of the OP, the high chance is that a Phone App will have been used to log the persons finds, which as access was via the API. No Last Visit Date would have been tripped. But the Finds Dates, gives a better indicator of Site Access. Deci

Ash Die Back Fungus, is now a Major Issue recognised by the UK Government, The Forestry Commission and Woodland Trust. The UK Geocaching Community, can help spot incidents, by a "Free" ios & Android App. Which can help identify and send a photograph and location to report the infected tree(s). Please help the environment, we rely on for our hobby, by installing Free IOS & Android Reporting tool & using it when out caching, and spreading the news about the app to your friends, using all social mediums. Deci

I have done a search, and no container Listed on GC. Is showing as being located on Boscawen Street Deci

Since you believe you have identified a Legal Issue over Archived caches, please contact Groundspeak directly. At the same time, make sure that your fully up to speed with the laws of Washington State USA, because in regards to the Website, that is the applicable laws which you agree applies. Local Laws, apply to the Physical Geocache Container, and the actions of Geocachers. That is why The Physical Container remains solely the Property of the Owner, and not Groundspeak, under any circumstances. Because we could face another Searcher trying to make a Claim for Personal Injury, for a Injury sustained whilst searching for or retrieving a Geocache. If Groundspeak, in some way could become the Owners of the Physical Container, they then could be deemed Legally Liable. And yes the above truly happened here in the UK, before you became a member. The CO and Landowner went through 12 months of hell, before the claim was dropped. Do you believe that Groundspeak, would open themselves to risk of such Liability. Especially when one of the Owners, is Legally Qualified? Groundspeak have 12 years experience of running a Geocache Listing Site, a Multi Billion Dollar Company is now also running a Listing Site, do you really believe either will ever open them selves up to such a Liability? Deci

Ahhhhh I see what you have done there. You've gone and bandied the word legal around lol. No. The site belongs to Groundspeak/geocaching and we adhere to the rules within it if we want to play. So if the rules say forced adoption will take place if you do not maintain a cache etc, Groundspeak/geocaching are covered as it is part of the terms and conditions. As to the claim that legally the physical cache belongs to the original CO thats true. It is their property. However it is placed in accordance with the T&C's of geocaching. If for whatever reason they lose that right for breaking the T&C's the cache is now placed in the public domain but without the consent of Groundspeak/geocaching. It would therefore become .... lost property. Which can be retrieved and must be returned to the owner by all means possible. So therefore handed into a police station. The same as if you found a wallet. Otherwise if you accept what you have written as fact then archiving a persons cache when they do not respond is breaking the same rules. Requests to retrieve archived cache containers to avoid geolitter - collusion to break those rules. Then we get into the whole legal drama of different laws for different countries. No, when you say legal you mean "policy" and policies can be changed. Legal is a whole different ball game. From the Archive logs I use I've made Bold the sections which make it clear it is the Cache Owner who is requested to uplift their property, or give me permission to find someone to do so. And you have ignored a very important point when you claimed Geocaching.com is just one of several Listing Sites, and in fact one particular one, owned by a Billion Dollar Company, has made it possible to easily transfer all the information held on Geocaching.com for any cache you own, on to their Listing Site, So Dual Listing it. In fact they actively encourage doing so. Which would argue contrary to your point that Archived caches on GC, now come into the Public Domain. You seem to have misunderstood, exactly what a Listing Site is. Deci

The reason that neither the Reviewers nor Groundspeak, do not have the ability to do "Forced Adoption", is due to the fact that the Owner of the Cache, remains ownership at all times, and as such, Groundspeak do not have a legal right to transfer ownership to a new owner. Geocaching.com is a Listing Site, that means it only Lists the details of the Geocache, and nothing else. In all the years I've been a Reviewer, the only time I've seen Groundspeak action the Transfer of Ownership, has been in cases where the Owner has Passed Away, and the Family have made the request that the ownership is transferred over. One major case, well known by many in the Community is that of Ewan-Billy Twigger. I was involved in that I gathered a List of Adopter's for all of his caches at the request of his family., But Groundspeak only actioned the Transfers, with the full permission of the family. Deci

No 1: Yes No 2: I actually did it for someone in a cache I own, it was a first date though, and she bailed on him after the first cache so never got the card I'd put in the cache on his behalf Ask some CO's in the area your intending to visit to help, I'm sure someone will Deci

Only the Landowner's permission is required, not necessarily NE. This has been discussed before here. Yes, I have seen the Thread you cited but in my experience in communications with various NE representatives that is NOT always the case and Reviewers should take note of that. I can only go off official communications to cachers, off NE which have made it clear that as long as the activity is not one requiring a Licence, and not a Single NE Employee has ever come back stating that Geocaching falls within that. Then NE unless they actually own the Land, they at the end of the day, can Legally only give "Approval" and not Permission. My personal experience as a cache owner was with their Welsh Counterpart, CCW. Way back in 2004, and I was the first person at least in Wales and possibly the UK, to obtain Landowner Permission for a SSSI. But in my case the SSSI Steering Group, had to give their approval. That included CCW, who did a Site Inspection, and I was person to person informed during that Site Inspection, that CCW can only give "Approval". The UK Reviewers require "Landowner Permission" for caches in SSSI's, it is up to each individual Landowner to decide if NE/CCW/SNHi is asked for "Approval". Unless we get a Official Communication directly off NE/CCW/SNHi to state that they have to Give "Permission" for caches placed in SSSI's, then we will always leave the decision about referral to NE/CCCW/SNHi to the Landowner. Because at the end of the day, the Land belongs to the Landowner, and they are the ones Legally Responsible for "all" activities taking place on the Designated area they own. Deci

Please Note that Acceptance of Requests for the Annual UK Mega Event Committee Account, for 2015, will open at 00:00 1-10-20012 This will close at 24:00 on the 30-11-2012. http://ukmecsh.forum...&mforum=ukmecsh If more than one request is made, the Chairman of each requesting Committee, will be contacted individually, with a request to submit a Tender in the agreed format (as posted in the Forum). If at 24:00 on the 30-11-2012 there is only one request. That committee will automatically be awarded the Account for 2015 Deceangi On behalf of the Annual UK Mega Event Committee Account Stake Holder Committee

Not sure about that, and anyway the guideline doesn't prohibit such caches. It's about burying caches. Sorry you seem to have misread the Guideline Anything which penetrates the Ground, is breaking it. The wording seems very clear. Anything which is," pushed into the Ground., "Breaks" the ground. Deci Hi All I've not been around these forums for quite a while, but happened to stumble into this discussion. I wonder if the UK Team have sought clarification on this from GS? I'm with HH on this and I'm looking at this from 2 angles. Firstly, GS are American and having lived there for 3 years I know there are a great many subtleties in our respective use of the English language. What an American writes or says is not always the same as what a Brit reads or hears. It's the whole 'Tomato', 'Tomarto' thing. So perhaps their use of 'Break Ground' is not an ideal choice of words. Secondly, I'm a H&S professional (yes you can all groan) and I spend my life fighting inappropriate over interpretation of quite sound regulations. All those crazy stories of banned flower baskets etc are caused by officialdom (usually local authorities) over interpreting the core reason and meaning of the regulations. 'Break Ground' has a clearly defined and accepted meaning in the English language which is to dig up land so you can plant crops or build something. While I am fully supportive of the excellent work done by our Reviewers, to over interpret this wording as anything more restrictive is simply on a par with all the barmy H&S stories so beloved of the Daily Mail. I'm afraid IMHO, Deci is being too selective in his use of bold to highlight the word break from the actual quote of break ground. GS have clearly used the phrase break ground. They have not used 'Break the surface' or any similar term. Sorry I know you "believe" that I personally misinterpreted the interpretation, but the interpretation was one as explained by a number of my colleagues from around the world, in the Reviewers Private forum! So not "my" interpretation, but one based on the opinions of those which a huge amount of experience between them, in interpreting the Guidelines! Some Reviewers, who have put in more time in the role than I have , agreed with the interpretation! Could we see a rewording of the Buried Guideline, who knows . The Guidelines are a constantly evolving entity, ones that evolve to take in the experiences and lessons learnt. Are the Guidelines perfect? Well no, and they will never be. Will there be disagreements about the implementation of them? Yes because we are all human, but the Reviewer Community do discuss the meaning and implementation of the Guidelines on a virtually constant basis. So it is not a case of one or 2 deciding that a specific interpretation is valid. Rather a large Group of experienced people, who can get further guidance off Groundspeak, in regards to the interpretation in regards to specific wording. Deci PS: anyone was free to contact Groundspeak at any time, and query the way I had interpreted the wording of the Buried Guideline. But did anyone actually so so? Instead, did they just decide, that because they did not "agree" with the interpretation I gave, that I was completely wrong, without asking the company who write the Guidelines! Or actually asking me personally, where I had got the interpretation from.

Centre Parcs have their own "Private" geocaches, which are located on their own property. They might have Listed them on another Listing Site. But are not Listed on GC. As such they treat them the same as any other "chargeable" activity that they run. Which all goes towards their profits. Deci

As someone Born in Manchester Lancashire, but in 1974 having the indignity of being relocated in to Manchester Greater Manchester. And having 2 children born in 1990 &1991, in Manchester Greater Manchester, and whose Grandmother lives in Oldham Greater Manchester. They and anyone born in Manchester/Oldham and any other of the cities located in Greater Manchester. would not have a clue about the old boundaries. Which is one of the reasons we went for Regions and not Counties. And if you changed England, would not Scottish and Welsh cachers, also want counties. Which again opens up a hair trigger minefield I live in Flintshire, note that is the modern Flintshire. And not the Historic one in existence before 1974 (which had a non contiguous part, the other side of Wrexham). In between the 2 in the Time line is Clwyd. Which incorporated a number of Welsh Counties. Amazingly some Businesses still believe I live in Clwyd As can be seen, anyone born after 1974 is used to the Modern Counties, in the case of the younger adults amongst us (those around 20/21) and teenagers will only have experience of the "Modern" Counties. Which are at the whim of Politicians (Cheshire in 2010 being split in to 2 separate counties ) The Regions were a one shot go, as they are "Locked" into the system. But at least they are not majorly at the whim of politicians, nor is there any confusion about which boundary for any of the Counties should be used If you live in the North West, your caches are in the North West Region, no arguments about which county they are in (unless your one of those die hards, who believes Cheshire and Merseyside are not in the North West ) UK Regions were the lesser evil of 5 separate evils Ceremonial/ Pre 1974/ 1974-1996/ 1996 to date (excluding Cheshire)/ GC UK Regions Deci PS: I'll always be a Lancashire Lad, but my children can never claim that. PPS: Would yo like to explain to our Merseyside Cachers, that they have caches in Lancashire . It's bad enough that Wirral cachers moan that their caches are in Merseyside, and not Cheshire (oh wait, they'd get their wish, and be in Cheshire )

Not sure about that, and anyway the guideline doesn't prohibit such caches. It's about burying caches. Sorry you seem to have misread the Guideline Anything which penetrates the Ground, is breaking it. The wording seems very clear. Anything which is," pushed into the Ground., "Breaks" the ground. Deci

Garmin now have their own Geocache Listing Site, and through this, each NT Visitors Centre as part of a Sponsorship Deal, between The National Trust and Garmin''s Listing Site. Receives the following package 4 Garmin Etrex 5 containers of various sizes A number of Posters/Leaflets advertising the Geocaches on the property. As part of the Sponsorship Deal, the NT have to List the caches they put out on Garmin's own Listing Site. However they are free to also list them on GC. Experiance has proven to the NT Staff, that sole Listing on Garmins Listing Site, does not bring in any visitors, to do their caches, however as soon as the caches are Listed on GC, the numbers start to come in In case anyone wishes to dispute the above, I recently in support, visited a NT Property, with the Education Rangers, who was on a fact finding visit in regards to Geocaching. We sat with the Education Ranger from that property. She'd already put out Geocaches on the property, before the sponsorship deal. Afterwards she added a couple listed solely on Garmin's site, and they did not have a single finder, despite poster up promoting those caches, at the same time, the original ones, listed on GC. Continued to get finders, it was not until those new caches were listed on GC, did they get finders to them. The pattern is being copied for many other NT properties, several have had caches Listed on Garmin's site for over 12 months, and yet there is not a single find logged on that site. Now watch all the FTF Ho's run out to claim a FTF on there Deci

Here is a reply that 'suggests' that reviewers do have certain access to accounts and Chris is unsure how much info should be openly relayed to the community therefore believes you should ask Groundspeak directly. If I am wrong in that assumption then I can't understand why a simple answer of 'Don't worry we don't have that sort of access' reply couldn't have been made. Not unless you choose to share it (via your profilepage Nope, reviewers can not access this information Nope, this info can only be accessed by the GS Lackys (employed at GS HQ) Again nope, (but if you want to send them to me [] ) Once again nope. All can see is the distance from your "home" co-ords to the co-ords of any cache you submit for publication To sum up, - reviewers (to the best of my knowledge) have no access to any personal information Then we have castagnari, whom was obviously typing his post as Graculus was submitting his saying that they don't have any access (to the best of his knowledge) (taking note his post was edited). I appreciate that castagnari is the forum mod, but his account does state that he is a reviewer. So my question is, if it is as clean cut as castagnari says, why has Graculus felt the need to refer the question to Groundspeak? Either something is being hidden or castagnari hasn't got a clue what he is talking about? Without dragging up the recent mud slinging, which is now hopefully on the road to a resolution, due to the serious nature of the Query. Graculus felt it would be best asked directly to Groundspeak. Given that Geocaching.com is one of their businesses, and the query is of a Legal Nature. And yes castagnari has joined the Reviewer Community as a Reviewer, on top of his/her Moderating duties. And yes what he/she posted is correct, about the level of access Reviewers have. Experience teaches Reviewers, how to spot Sock Accounts submitting Listings for Review. No special access to personal details. But if needed Groundspeak can be queried, who will just give a YES/No back to Reviewers, so again no personal details is provided to Reviewers. Also any child under the age of 13 years old, should only have created a account under their parents supervision. Because that is the cut off age for creating accounts, as GC is subject to US laws. On creating a Account, everyone agrees that the Laws applicable in the State of Washington USA, will apply in all legal issues. And Sorry! But the process of selecting New Reviewers has been posted in this forum in the past, a search would throw that up. But once again to dispel claims of secrecy about the process, here is a Template I use to reply to queries, which shows the process is in the public domain. In forum posts and peoples In Box's At the end of the day Reviewers are answerable to Groundspeak, who have a series of Sanctions that they can apply. The most severe being to remove the person as a Site Volunteer. So Reviewers are held to a high standard by them. Now I've clarified everything, if any one wishes to take this further. Please take it up directly with Groundspeak. Because to be honest, this is starting to develop into a Reviewer Bashing. Deci

Oh no the Gold belongs to Eckington, who managed to clock a staggering and unbelievably fast One Second I kid you not, that is not a joke, but really happened Deci I've yet to come close to that in over 6 years

Northern Island is part of Ulster Ireland. This is solely a site designation to remove complications about caches being either listed as UK or Ireland as happened in the past. This Geocaching Region is the Historic Region of Ulster, not the modern political one, so includes a couple of counties in Southern Ireland. The decision took the politics out of Geocaching. Deci

I've just looked and there is one Car Boot pinned topic. There was two due to a technical issue which has now been resolved. One was a redirect to the Garage Sale Topics area on the Main forums, where the Car Boot Topic was moved to. Groundspeak recently moved it back into it's home Forum (UK & Ireland). Unfortunately the pinned redirect could not be deleted, making it seem like the topic was two separate ones, this has now been resolved. Deci

But then neither did the Govt put mobile ground to air missile bases on the top of residential tower blocks, or move a significant proportion of it's attack jets closer to London, or stick a Helicopter support vessel full of Marines on the Thames, or ..., for the Jubilee. Face it folks, if anyone's paranoid or over reacting it's the powers that be (i.e. The Govt, The Met, LOCOG, The IOC). I think Groundspeak are just toeing the line here and I can fully understand why they are doing it 'cos the way things are going the plod on the streets, and the PCSOs, and the latter day Bodie & Doyles, are going to be jumping on anything at the drop of a hat that looks even remotely suspicious. It's just as well Groundspeak don't close down caches for the Tour de France isn't it! And has anyone worked out yet what happens to a plane shot down by a guided missile?? Wouldn't it achieve just what a terrorist would want by falling on a densely populated area or Olympic arena?? Chris Excluding Weatherby, there have been incidents with Police based at both Birmingham Airport (2-3 miles away from the Airport Boundary) and Manchester Airport (whose Senior officers wanted a 2 mile exclusion zone around the Airport Boundary) due to the behaviour of Geocachers, not the containers being found. But the biggest over reaction, was at Albert Docks Liverpool. When a Geocacher was Challenged by Security Staff, who had watched the Geocacher on CCTV. Moved towards the Geocacher shouting "Drop the Detonator" , said Detonator being his GPSr. Now imagine the Security Forces, near to a Olympic Venue, being called to someone acting in a very suspicions manner. It would create havoc, especially if the venue was closed down. Deci

I'm not going into the details of the whose and whys behind the account. But it was someone who had found the caches previously. And wished to retain all the finds, whilst caching under a completely new account, breaking ties with the original account. However by logging them all in such a short period, several members linked the original and the new account together, making the purpose of the new account defunct. Deci

Ok to end your Roswell/Kennedy Assassination type conspiracy theory. You have been given the exact information given to Groundspeak by BT. The email BT sent to Groundspeak did not contain any other information or explanation. And in fact was not very long! So no Blood to be Squeezed out, because we have already been totally drained dry over this. If you want more information, please contact BT directly and ask for it. Because neither the UK Reviewers, nor Groundspeak can give you any more information, than what has already been given. Because we don't have anything to give, nor anything to hide! You Know What We Know! As to why this is specific to BT? That is because BT made the request in regards solely to "Their" property! If any of the other Telecoms companies who own Phone Boxes, contacts Groundspeak about their property, request no Geocaches on their property. Then a Ban will be applied to their property as well! The Ban is strictly a Landowner Generated one, one where you have been given "all" the information given to Groundspeak and the UK Reviewers! But your free to contact Groundspeak directly and ask them, if we are hiding anything! I copied directly from the BT email the phrase that was the only reason BT gave, no other information to fill in details! So no hiding anything! Deci whose been squeezed totally dry of "all" information, come down to the Event at Bala, or even the NW Mega at Cartmel. And I will happily stand on a Table/Stage and make the same statement, in front of all who attend. Does that now close the whole issue over information down? Now that you have had a Simple, straightforward answer, to a Simple, straightforward question.

There is a possibility that the second cache, was a Angel cache. Someone decided not to have a DNF so dropped a container to log a find. It's been a common situation in the past for the original container to still be in place, and there to be one or more Angel containers. One cache had four I believe Deci

BT contacted Groundspeak to inform them of the removal of the containers and that they would remove all ones found in the future, stating that there was It was the archival of one of these caches, which lead to the Topic in the NW Forum, and not the other way around. And I as made very clear to you, it had nothing to do with anyone living near to the Phone Boxes.

Sorry but I find that comment, extremely offensive! Especially as both Groundspeak and my colleague both tried working with the council to try and get the ban removed. No Ban is good for the Hobby, And before you try quoting examples to support that statement, there is a huge difference between putting into place, a requirement for Proof of Permission, to help protect the hobby. And a Total Ban. Deci

Having personally as a Member and not a Reviewer, dealt with a Permission issue with a CC, about a cache at one of their premises, a CC who is very supportive of Geocaching. Only to face the same issue, the Councils Legal Department were queried. And a refusal ensued for Legal reasons only. Please remember for the most cases of caches on Council Property, it is usually the Countryside Services Department or Recreational Services Department which is involved in giving Permission. As soon as a Councils Legal Department gets involved, the situation changes. Because they only look at the request, from a Legal Risk point of view. In all cases they always take the "Worst Case Scenario" point of view. Because of this, I'm aware of County and Local Councils, who will not enter into a Geocache Placement Agreement, despite them being very supportive of Geocaching and usually giving Permission if asked. Because if a Agreement is made, their Legal Department will have to be involved. Please don't make claims about decisions made by a Landowner, that you were not involved in the making of, because there are Landowners who read these forums. Deci