Jump to content

Deceangi

Members
  • Posts

    1582
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Deceangi

  1. In the First instance contact the Vicar/Pastor/Minister/Father who in the majority of cases will give a decision. I can only remember a couple of cases, where the decision was referred up to the Pastoral Council. Deci
  2. Please do not replace a container, unless you previously have obtained the Cache Owners Permission, Drying out a Container or adding a new log book is fine. But replacing a container without the Cache Owners Permission and agreement , risks opening a can of worms that you don't wish to find out about. The UK so far is the only Country, where a Searcher sustained a injury, whilst searching for a cache. Who then went directly to a Personal Injury Claims Company, said Company then contacted both the Cache Owner and Landowner, who has given permission for the cache. The intention to obtain a settlement off both of them. The Cache Owner alone, went through 12 months of sheer hell, before the claim was dropped. If you replace a container without a Cache Owners Permission, you are opening yourself up to legal issues. As in the event of there being any sort of issue either with the Landowner or heaven to bid a repeat and a Personal Injury Claims Company is involved. The Owner of the Cache, can deny all responsibility for the Cache and all issues with it. Given that all caches are Listed at the Owners own Risk, which means that Neither Groundspeak or the Sites Volunteer Reviewers have any responsibility for it. If the CO denies all responsibility, pointing out that they did not place the Container, nor did they give permission for the Container to be placed on their behalf. Then the person on who responsibility will fall, will be the person who replaced the Container. Also if you replace a container without a CO's Permission, and there is a outstanding Needs Archived log on it, or someone subsequently posts a Needs Archived log to it. It will be Archived! Due to the CO not Maintaining it. Please if the cache is in desperate need of Maintenance, post a Needs Archived log to it. Either the CO will actually maintain it, or the cache will be Archived. Deci
  3. The Lilly Pad to enable me to meet the Lackeys I've worked with, but not had the chance to meet. Preferably at Block Party Time. so I could get in the queue for a few shots at the Dunk tank The other place, but health would prevent me, is the ISS. A out of this world experience Deci
  4. When I became a Reviewer May 2006, there was only around (you might not believe this) 3,500 Active caches in the UK. In the last 5 years I've published a tad over 40,000 . I've published caches in every part of the UK (including NI, pre Regions being added to the UK & Ireland) the IoM, Malta and Gibraltar the caches in those locations being in the tad over part Going back to 2008, I would not have believed then that the numbers being submitted each day, would require another 10 UK Reviewers, and I'd still be seeing a heavier daily workload than I was in 2008 . The growth of Geocaching in the UK over the last 3 years alone has been astronomical (one possible cause has been the creation of the Geocaching Smart Phone Apps) Deci
  5. We were FTF on a cache in Scotland a couple of weeks ago and I was a bit surprised to see that Deci was the reviewer... Mark Alba is currently on long term sick leave due to a debilitating illness , so I'm sneaking over 2 borders to review caches in the land of the haggis . One the way back I'm reviewing North West whilst The Royal Oak is gallivanting around Canada and the US , before finally arriving back into the welcoming arms of the Welsh Dragon Deci
  6. Congratulations mate! I'll bet her Brothers are chuffed to bits too Deci
  7. Well as the news is out A Big welcome to La Lunatica the UK's newest Reviewer (another colleagues name I've got to learn to spell correctly ) I hope everyone gives Him/Her the usual warm welcome. So that He/She does not change His/Her mind and run for the hills As for eric LR80 he was one of the very first Reviewers (or approvers as they were originally known) and they Reviewed under the one account. It was only as the hobby developed, that the practice of separate Reviewer and Member accounts developed. I'm sure La Lunatica will eventually reveal his/her Member Account name Deci And now the games begins
  8. UK reviewers were implementing this policy at least two years ago, possibly even longer. I was told at the time it was Groundspeak Policy so it's interesting to read your comments now. The cache I was attempting to resurrect was the first physical cache to be placed on Dartmoor. I thought there was a historical justification but apparently I was wrong. Groundspeak gives Instructions to Reviewers all the time. The last time they did so about Archived caches was within the last 12 months. Having done so in the past. The policy was implemented under the Instructions of Groundspeak, as far back as I've been a Reviewer (and I've been a Reviewer for over 5 years) so it's not a fairly new policy. Deci
  9. As I pointed out in my post, it has been illegal to drive a Motorised Vehicle on Snowdon since 1951. The SNR has it's own works train, and that was used to haul all the materials and building Staff up to the Summit Building when it was rebuilt. The Driver of the vehicle does not work for SNR , he drove up the mountain as it was one of his Top 50 things to do Deci
  10. Ermm http://coord.info/GCJZCE mind you that was Pre Reviewer days Deci
  11. The Driver has been arrested and is facing charges now. Plus I'd estimate a huge bill to cover the cost of recovering the vehicle off the Mountain as the options being discussed are Attempt to Drive it down Load it on to a flat bed truck and get taken down by the SNR Dismantle and haul the pieces down by SNR Air lift it out using a Heavy Lift Helicopter Even Mountain Rescue will not take Motor Vehicles up the Mountain, especially as it's been illegal to take a Motorised Vehicle on to Snowdon since the fifties For those not aware, Snowdon is owned by CCW the Designating Authority for the Welsh Assembly. And is a Designated SSSI, but a location which CCW have been highly supportive of Geocaching in. Deci
  12. Who is this WE ? I know of a cache in another country which was archived in 2001, un-archived in April 2006 and adopted to a new owner. Archived again in December 2006 then un-archived in April 2010! Mark The "WE" your referring to is the UK Reviewers, who are following clear instructions given by Groundspeak, within the last 12 months. As for other countries, I can't comment on, as I don't know any of the details behind the decision. If you have a issue with the other cache, located in another country. Please take that up directly with Groundspeak. Personally I can see no justifiable reason to unarchive a cache located in the UK, Archived in 2001 or 2002. the cache has been dead for 10 years, unarchiving it and replacing the container would only have one reason, to obtain the early GC Code, and no other reason, that's not a justification to unarchive. Deci
  13. The Ban on the use of Fire Tacks or similar was from the WT Technical Officer. If the Local Forester, who is the one who has to make the decision is happy for alternative arguments, then that person will give the yes to the cache. But in all cases, all details of how the cache is found, needs to be provided as part of the Walk In instructions. So that they cam make a informed decision. Some Woods will be deemed not suitable for Night Caches, by them. Deci
  14. Simple answer, they will not allow the use of Fire Tacks in any of their woods. An it is also only a couple of FC area which have a confirmed ban on them. We've not had a statement allowing or Banning their usage from the majority of FC Areas You'll find information on the Woodland Trust Ban Here Deci
  15. Edinburgh will have to be a New Cache Submission as we don't unarchive caches which have been Archived over 12 months. That one was Archived before Archive logs were created so it's been Archived 9-10 years. Also the location is a SSSI. Also we don't unarchive caches to allow them to be adopted. Deci
  16. Can I ask the OP, if he contacted the Cache Owner about the Location of the one on the Bin? Maybe the Reviewer had raised the issue of the location, and the person still decided that he/she wanted the cache published in that location. So due diligence could have been done by the Reviewer, before Publication. Deci
  17. I've just looked at my Log numbers, in over 5 years as a Reviewer, with over 40,00 Published (actual Reviewed cache Number is a lot higher) I've Retracted just 35 in fact I've Retracted just one up to now this year. I can't comment on my Colleagues figures, but would hope that they have a % rate similar or smaller than I have. Reviewers are Human, and we make mistakes. Just like every other Member of this community, So occasionally we have to retract a cache, to rectify a mistake we have made. In the last 5 years not only has the workload increased by several thousand % (I personally see the sort of cache submission numbers per day, that I saw in a average week 5 years ago, now multiply that by the number of UK Reviewers to give you a idea of how big the workload has got). Also the actual workload per cache submission has increased by several thousand times. The Angst level has increase by possibly a hundred thousand times what it was five years ago. The number of caches needing to be reviewed 2 or 3 times before publication has hugely increased. So it would be no surprise to me if the level of mistakes, has increased slightly. But personally I'd estimate that the number of Mistakes compared as a % of Published caches has possibly gone down. Due to the huge amount of consultation with each other the UK & Ireland Reviewers do each day. The learning curve when I became a Reviewer was steep, the learning curve for those who have come on as Reviewers in the last 3 years has been steeper and getting steeper every month. Add in the huge daily workload they take on, is the equivalent of a weeks workload when I came on-board. So I think that to cope so well from the get-go, each one has coped amazingly well, and the UK and Ireland Geocaching communities, have been extremely lucky to get such dedicated individuals to say yes when conned into becoming asked to become a Reviewer. Deci
  18. You can get Combat Pants, which have a pocket in the knee area for a foam insert. A search on ebay or local Army Surplus, and you should find some. I've seen them in Cammo and Black. usually a 3mm high density foam is used for the inserts. Deci
  19. The New Forest Agreement covers 5 Geocache Listing Sites, not just Geocaching.com. Any solution apart from the New Forest Authorities, removing the fixed number of caches. Has to be one which can easily be applied over All 5 Geocache Listing Sites. The best place for this to be discussed is the GAGB forum as that is Listing Site Neutral, as is the Agreement with the New Forest Authorities Please Note! Whilst you have to be a Member of the GAGB Forums to post on there, you do not have to be a Member of the GAGB. If you are a Member of the GAGB, you are automatically a member of the GAGB Forums. However there is a separate Forum Only Membership available (Membership of the forum, is required to help block spammers posting to the forum) Deci
  20. Last time round it was ONLY previous UK mega event committee members. Not quite true, but not for discussion here Please do not try to confuse things with semantics, because that could lead to accusations that the votes were made by those not entitled to! Because as we all know, the writen word does not convey the true meaning behind what is written, so can lead to angst. As the person who put the vote together in a effort to resolve the whole issue. I can confirm that the only people who voted were those who had been members of the Harrogate/Weston/Perth Mega Event Committees , and those members of the then current Swansea Mega Organising Committee, who wished to take part in the vote. As each person had to be given access to the area where the vote was located on the forum. Access to the vote was tightly controlled. And just to publicly confirm, so that there is no claims of such in the future, given the way angst can appear on forums. I had access to the area, but I did not vote. Deci
  21. At the moment I've been reviewing late in the evening, but that'll change again and 'll be back to reviewing at odd hours. I've been known to Publish at 02:00 before now I've even sat in my car using McD's free WIFI (I've probally put in over a thousand hours using it ) and did so one Christmas Eve, right up to 21:00 when they shut up, and turned off their WIFI oh and I was back on Boxing Day to finish off. (dongle at Christmas was no chance of a usable connection) furthest connection has been over 50m away from the building A car, a Lap Top, a inverter and McD's WIFI and several cups of their Lattes, oh and a Belgium Bliss Brownie (but don't tell my O/H ) and I'm one happy Reviewer if I'm away from home . Even better now many McD's are open 24/7 I can only think of possibly 4am when I've not actually published a cache see I told you I'm random. I've been dragged to bed at well past 03:00 screaming and kicking because I wanted to get a few more reviewed Deci oh and pre Reviewer days, I was known to go out at 02:00 drive 40+miles and search in the pouring rain for a FTF on a Micro
  22. Between Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth, who were all Reviewers at the same time and all resigned together at the same time, and Eckington becoming a Reviewer there was no one else from the UK Reviewing caches. Tim&June, Moss Trooper, Richard and Beth were involved in actually setting up the GAGB in the first place. I'd also suggest you have a look at the number of Geocaching Associations in the US, the GAGB is not the only local Geocaching Association in the world. Groundspeak are currently working on a project detailing all Local Guidelines and Land Owner Agreements, but is it has to be populated by Volunteers, that is a on going Project. Once full populated it will be rolled out. As for It was when you first became a Geocacher, there was virtually no Guidelines. But over time the hobby has grown up, moved from being underground. Landowners have become more aware of Geocaching. So someone has had to step up to deal with all that has created! Would you have been the one to deal with Historic Scotland when they found a cache in a Dry Stone Wall, one that is a Scheduled Monument? Or the Woodlands Trust, because they became aware of Geocaching? Or the Forestry Commission because they became aware of Geocaching? Or be the one to negotiate out the matter of Placement Fee's with a large number of Landowners? The GAGB have stepped in and dealt with all that. I'd suggest you catch up with Geocaching in the "Now" and stop thinking about as still being the same as 2002.When it was literally the wild west, with virtually no regulation, no Landowners being aware of the hobby. Very few caches around, there was around 3,500 active caches in the UK in 2006. We are now close to 100,000 active caches in the UK. The hobby is now totally different to way back in 2002, it's the hobbies equivalent of a Baby growing up into a Teenager into Adult! As for the name, well if you'd been a member, you'll have know that the "Members" voted on a name change, and the vote was to keep the current one. So if your going to castigate them about something, please at least get your facts correct. Wikipedia article on Great Britain at the time of formation there was discussions about the inclusion of Ireland, so I believe the usage of Great Britain is correct. otherwise to be correct it would have to be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Given that NI is now Included in Ulster Ireland on GC. Before anyone decides to have a rant about that Ulster is the Historical Region not the modern Political Region. Also if you care to look, I posted the topic about the implementation of the Guideline, not a GAGB Committee Member. I also at the same tome posted the same message to all the Local UK Geocaching Forums t hat I'm a member off, Again not the GAGB Committee. FYI the UK Reviewers are possibly the busiest in the world in regards to Landowner issues, because we cover such a small Geographic area, with so many separate landowners. With one Major Landowner being divided into regional areas, each having to be dealt with separately. For Wales alone there is over 4,500 separate Scheduled Monuments to deal with. CADW the Welsh Designating Authority being fully aware of Geocaching, The same for their counterparts in England and Scotland. The German Reviewers having totally different issues to deal with. The GAGB provides a lot a support over dealing with those Landowners, so please do not try and compare 2 totally different situations against each other. If the UK Police contact Groundspeak about a cache, Groundspeak will task a Local Reviewer with Archiving the cache. That has happened several times pre Wetherby. Also FYI there has already been one cache Archived, due to concerns about it causing a security issue. several hundred miles away from Wetherby. If we can't self police ourselves, and loose the support we do have off the Police. Then the future will see Legal Governance of the hobby by the Government. How many do you think will be interested in taking part, if they know that they face a huge chance of at least receiving a caution due to Geocaching in the UK being legally regulated? Personally I've had a number of members contact me, concerned over the risk of receiving a caution. That's without any negative legislation. You've mentioned illegally copying CD's, yet Legal Opinion is that you are entitled to make a copy for personal usage. However if you make a copy for someone else, then you are breaking the law. Again the 2 situations are different. In one you have the Copyright Holder making a claim against you, in the case of Geocaching you have the Police applying any one of a number of Laws against you, as the person at Wetherby has found out at major cost to his career. Deci
  23. You should now be aware that the UK is possibly the most complicated area in regards to Landowner issues in the world. Given that compared to many other places we are so small and fragmented in regards to who owns what Land. The GAGB has been responsible for UK Geocachers, not having to Pay a Fee for a Permit to Place a Geocache, with Multiple Large Landowners. Why? Because the GAGB negotiated that out! The GAGB after years of repeated Negotiations, achieved a National Geocache Placement Agreement with the National Trust (whose own internal document on Geocaching, states that the Property Manager has to "Find a Suitable Alternative Location" if the chosen one is not suitable) The GAGB were responsible for the Woodland Trust Agreement. The GAGB was close to negotiating a National Agreement with the Forestry Commission, until the Negotiation was brought to a halt. Due to a Manager within the FC, stating that Geocaching should be required to pay a Fee like other activities. A National Agreement with the FC, will be returned in the future. The GAGB were responsible for the New Forest Agreement The GAGB were involved in negotiations with the Royal Park Senior Management, unfortunately the Royal Parks Senior Manager and a Sargent from the Royal Parks Police Division (they are now part of the Met Police) were totally intransigent at that meeting . The Government simply consulting the same person over the 10 Downing St , the GAGB will return to that issue in the future. There are just some of the things the GAGB, have done for the UK Community. Of course if you and others are quite happy to pay a fee to place geocaches in the UK, then of course the Association that you have no time for, can stop negotiating on the behalf of the UK Community. Here is a fact , if even one Landowner successfully charged a Fee for the Placement of Geocaches. Then every major Landowner would follow the example. So you'd every FC area charging a fee to place a cache. The NW FC wanted a £30 fee for a 3 year Permit to place caches. That did not give permission, just covered them processing each request within that 3 year period. It took 3 years of request Geocachers did not Buy a Permit. For the NW FC to quietly drop that Fee, after they conducted a trial in Cumbria. If I hadn't known that the GAGB was continuing to Negotiate out Placement Fee's, I would not have spent 3 years requesting every cacher who placed a cache within that period on NW FC property, not to Purchase a Permit. That must number over 100 Geocachers over the 3 year period, who agreed to comply with that request. That is part of the benefit created by the Association which you and several others have no time or interest in! I'll look forward to your comments in the future, if you place a cache on a Landowners Property, one where the GAGB Negotiated out the Fee. Or alternatively the GAGB is disbanded as some within the community wish to see, and you have to start paying Fees to place Geocaches (and that would affect every Listing Site!) So do you fancy forking out £30/40/50 to place caches? Deci
  24. For the opponents of the GAGB, and I see several who have posted in this topic (so why not declare that fact up front, so people can be full informed. It's not a hidden view is it?) here is the actual wording I've asked Cache Owners who I've applied the "New Guideline" to The information on who the person involved in the Wetherby Incident was, who his employer is, and what he was charged with. Were supplied to the Reviewers/GAGB Committee in a confidential communication. If the person wishes to reveal some or all of that information, or provides permission for the Reviewers/GAGB Committee to do so. We will immediately make that information public! We have been extremely lucky in the UK, that we have avoided major restrictions placed on our hobby Manchester Airport Exclusion Zone, hold tightly to the Airport Boundary. Because the person tasked to set it, was a Geocacher and persuaded his Superiors that a wider Exclusion Zone, was not needed. His Superiors wanted a 2-3 mile Exclusion Zone around the Airport as measured from the Airport Boundary. Geocacher gets reported to the Police, due to his behaviour being suspicious. By a Member of The Airport Watch Scheme. Sounds fine, he's near a Airport so there is a possibility of triggering such a event. This person was Challenged by Police at the cache location. Only the cache location was 20 Miles away from the Airport, but under the flight path! The Police made contact and requested that the cache was removed. They also suggested at that time, that all caches under "Flight Paths" be removed! In the case of the Flight Path it is a Dog Leg, not a straight Line. Now move that forward, and the Police "require all caches" under Flight Paths Removed. What affect would that have? Just think how heavily populated the sky's over and surrounding London alone are with Flight Paths! At a stroke a large area is put out of bounds to Geocaching. How much "Non Urban Areas" is under Flight Paths. Manchester Airport alone, has "Flight Paths" which avoid the majority of Population areas in and out of the Airport. Albert Docks Liverpool. A Geocacher searching for the cache, has Security Guards rush up to him, shouting "Put the Detonator Down"! They did this after watching him on CCTV. After the Wetherby Incident, Groundspeak instructed that a Cache be Archived, after contact was made with them. Expressing major concerns about Security Risks and the Impact any Security Alert would have in the area. That's one of the Ripples being felt after Wetherby, and that location was 200+ miles away. I've been in direct communications with two separate Police Forces, who made contact after the Wetherby Incident. Neither being the Yorkshire Police. More Ripples being felt. I've already seen a comment about the Royal Parks Banning Geocaching on Security Grounds. That is the sort of attitude we have to turn around, if a simple Guideline helps to do that, then that is in our best interest. Someone has quoted the Inspector on the BBC Interview, I can tell you, in the interview he was referring to wishing to see something applied that is the same as the Met Agreement. Why do I know this, because it was raised in a conversation with the Journalist before both both interviews took place.I got interviewed in Manchester (in the BBC Centre Car Park) at midday, the Inspector was interviewed in the afternoon. The interviewer would have had a "Off Camera" discussion first about the questions going to be asked and background information. For those who don't know the Met Agreement (which covers the Governments Security Zone in London), each cache owner has to supply a photograph of the container, a written description of how it is hidden, and attached to this is a map showing the location. The article was balanced, what you don't see is the twenty minutes on the cutting floor from the On Film Interview I gave, so how much of the Interview with the Inspector was cut? Did he actually have stronger suggestions, that he would like to see applied? So what is the lesser of 2 evils, applying the Advice given by the ACPO? Or applying what the Inspector in the Yorkshire Force, would like to see apply? The GAGB after consulting the ACPO and discussing the advice given with the Reviewers, created a simple Guideline. If any one and this is aimed at the Anti GAGB Commentators, believe they can do better! Then step up and take part in all the negotiations that will take place. I don't mean the GAGB-Community ones. I mean the GAGB-Police Forces-ACPO ones. Take time off work to negotiate with them, attend meetings with them. The GAGB may not be perfect! But at least they are willing to work to protect YOUR HOBBY! Can you actually say the same? Here is being completely open, when I offered to do the On Camera Interview, the offer was made because no cacher local to Wetherby was wiling to do so in the time frame needed, despite the Journalist making a public request for someone to do so. Why? Possibly because they did not want to be identified as a Geocacher in the area. So i offered so that the article would at least have the UK Communities side. At the time, I was not aware that the BBC would be covering my travel expenses. On the day of the interview, I got a phone call asking me to go to BBC Manchester, at 09:00. I arrived at BBC Manchester at around 12:00. I spent over 20 minutes doing the on camera interview, and then drove home. A trip of 124 miles. I'd already offered to attend discussions with local Yorkshire cachers and the Yorkshire Police, that would have been out of my own pocket. And would have involved travelling over 200 miles. So if I'm prepared to give up my time and cover all my own costs to protect Geocaching in the UK, are the detractors prepared to do the same? Or are they just going to sit at their computers and be totally negative! Lets see people add their Names to a list of people, willing to give up their Time and at their own expense to aid in dealing with the negotiations? So I'll start Dave Palmer-Deceangi-Mancunain Pyrocacher Anyone else? Deci
  25. I have received conformation of the caution, the person receiving it, did not feel in a position to challenge it. Due to major ramifications with his employer, this person is now facing possible serious sanctions of his employer due to receiving a caution off the Police. This person has requested his details be kept confidential, due to the on-going situation he's facing with his employer. A request that the UK Reviewers and the GAGB will comply with. Unless this person decides to take up a offer made on this forum for Pro Bono legal help over this issue, and the information becomes public. Or this Person or the Police reveal further information. The full details will remain confidential. Given the location of the Bomb Incident and the fact that the person fully identified himself. It is up to the Police to explain why a Caution was given. I've seen comments that a Serving Police Officer who is a Geocacher, attended the incident after the EOD team had attended, Identified the container as a Geocache and that it was Harmless. Despite this the EOD team continued with the Controlled Explosion. If this information is accurate, there seems to have been a major breakdown in communications, one which the Police need to investigate. This persons employment is such, that to do so would have immediately guaranteed major sanctions off his employer, not as is current, the possibility of Sanctions that he is currently facing! That would not only place his future career at risk, but also current employment with them, in this time of sever Cuts in Expenditure. Again I personally have had conformation of the persons Identity, who his employer is. And that he received a Police Caution. Deci
×
×
  • Create New...