Jump to content

Richard & Beth

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Richard & Beth

  1. quote:Originally posted by Tim & June: Hope you didn't deliberately ignore June. You definately know how to ruffle feathers ! Sorry June, didn't mean to exclude you from that. Humblest apologies. Probably servers as a little example of what I was saying about moderators screwing up from time to time! Richard
  2. quote:Originally posted by MCL:I am not excusing what Dan did. They can't excuse what their moderator did. Face it, it was bad call by both of them. Indeed, but like all of the moderators here, we all have our bad days when we screw up and make bad calls. He did post a rather terse explanation on Wednesday morning, and a fuller explanation now. I really think that we should move on, I don't think there is any point in picking over who did what to whom and when, or posting critiques of the moderation style on the MA site. What is important is we accept that, as with any flame war, there were misunderstandings on both sides, and people on both sides did things they shouldn't. Endless analysis is not going to change that, except to, as Dan's post above is evidence of, continue with the mud slinging, and the upset that causes. I see that the e-mail threats have been highlighted and are being addressed also, and that a number of the people involved have apologised. Whilst there is much we can learn from each other in the two communities, and I welcome any discussions along those lines, I do think it is time to let the criticism and blame postings stop here and to move on. The moderator from MA has stated his position, and Dan has now stated his, let that be the end of it. Richard [This message was edited by Richard & Beth on January 24, 2003 at 06:04 AM.]
  3. I just read the full post on the MA site. From a moderators point of view coming on to discover that volume of spam I, or Tim probably would have done the same. However as has been said, I suspect Dan and Pid have learned a massive lesson from this, and it is time to move on. Although the discussion does seem to be rolling on over there, the discussion has moved on to 'the only person to be banned from the UK Geocaching site' which has produced some interesting responses to say the least! Richard
  4. And I was putting it down to my using a beta copy of Apples new browser Safari... Richard
  5. Having read through all the postings, one of the things that caused more problems is the implication, drawn from one of the caches, that we don't follow our own rules. Whilst all the moderators do our best to check caches are ok when we approve them, even before this there have been unsuitable caches that have slipped through. Whilst we are currently building good contacts with the various big landowners and site custodians in the country, a lot of the good work could be scuppered by people from the MA site complaining to the authorities, and caches being discovered in unsuitable or unauthorised locations. So if you have caches hidden at any locations such as those that are, or could be included on the Modern Antiquarian site you should ask the following questions: 1) Did you hide the cache having obtained proper permission from the people responsible for the site? 2) Is it in any way placed outside, and away from the significant parts of the site or in a location approved by the people responsible for the site? 3) Does it conform to all cache rules, specifically not being buried, or hidden in a way that impacts the site? If the answers to any of them are No then the cache should be moved or removed until you can honestly answer Yes to all the questions. If you contact either ourselves or Tim and June, and we can archive the cache from the site. Seriously if only one or two such caches turn up coupled with vocal complaints to the site custodians we could have similar problems to those that are occuring in the US where some cachers have to purchase a renewable licence to hide a cache, and in some places are banned altogether. Regards, Richard
  6. Dan, I've just read through all of the Geocaching related postings on the MA site. As they say, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I'm sure everybody here is aware that you didn't intend to start the flame war that occured. Looking at the postings most of it was a small number of users on that site, the rest of the users giving a much more conciliatory response. Certainly I can see no reason why you should feel that you shouldn't be posting to this site as a result of the reaction you have recieved elsewhere. Richard
  7. Just listened to the sections of the show about Geocaching, well done to Tim and June and to John Bell for valiantly trying to put across Geocaching against presenters eager to make us out as anoraks. What was said in amongst the tupperware and silly name comments was good, hopefully listeners will hear Tim and June, and John's enthusiasm rather than the presenters attitude. Richard
  8. So how many regions of the BBC are interested in doing Geocaching items now? Maybe with all this interest we could get Geocaching on national TV next... Pro-celebrity Geocaching anyone? Richard
  9. My reading of the e-mail was that they were the owners of the land, as they do specifically refer to it as our land. The fact that there is a public footpath across the land has no bearing on ownership at all, hence the many examples of confrontations between landowners and walkers who want to walk a footpath, where for some reason the landowner has chosen to block the path. The majority of land, especially in the area in question will be privately owned. Moving on to methods of access I can think of a number of footpaths around here that are obviously accessible to 4x4's because the local landowners use them to access parts of their land, something that they are perfectly at liberty to do. However as it is only classified as a footpath, nobody else is allowed to drive down it. When 4x4's became more popular a number of years ago I remember a lot of discussion in the local press about 4x4 owners doing exactly what has been described in the e-mail. There is no way that we, as a geocaching community can condone actions such as these. By the nature of our hobby we are entirely dependant on the goodwill of landowners, whether they be individuals or organisations, as ultimately if we get a bad name, our caches will not be allowed, and we don't have a hobby any more. Richard
  10. quote:Originally posted by Tim & June: No it's not just you, but the missing bit is only us placing the cache with Chris Packham which was shown right at the end of the show. We're sure missing seeing us place the cache is no great loss Our official copy turned up yesterday too. Not having the cache placing sequence you do miss out on the surreal experience of Tim, June and Chris Packham climbing the hill to the title music of Terry and June, that classic 80's suburban sit-com... Richard
  11. quote:Originally posted by Tim & June:I have had a call from the Inside Out team in the South East Region. Looks like they are going to re-show the Geocaching part there too. I think the region covers Surrey, Sussex and Kent. South-East Region is what was left when the BBC split off Greater London. It is Kent for certain, and East Sussex (West Sussex comes under South), however bits of Surrey like Woking still get BBC London. Unfortunately it is the BBC London bit that goes out on Sky. Richard
  12. quote:Originally posted by TreeBeard (Pid): 1.) Beth says thankyou to the Cameraman when she walks off to re-hide the cache! LoL Funny Bits you didn't see: 1. The point after they filmed the shot of us from the top of the church tower when the cameraman came down without the sound man and sheepishly admited that they'd dropped the only key to the door at the top off the tower somewhere in the bell chamber... 2. The whole sequence where we talked to Chris about Gulliver Bear (them having just done the sequence with Tim and June) only to be told by the producer that we couldn't talk about it because it was being shown in a different order. 3. The bit where the vicar wanders out of the church and locks the door mid-shot so we had to make sure the church door was positioned in exactly the same way as before. I still think the funniest bit in the show is still the 'people say a lot of things about Dan and Pid' quote... Richard
  13. quote:Originally posted by Kouros: The credit truly belongs to Tim & June, Team Tate, Dan & Pid, and (of course) Gulliver Bear!! and... I seem to remember a certain cache in Finchampstead together with a stack of pictures turning up on the show... Richard
  14. quote:Originally posted by jeremyp: Too late, Rincewind and Luggage are probably there now retrieving the travel bug. I would actually say that would be a little unfair to go grab the travel bug immediately, at least give someone new to the game a chance to find it first! Richard
  15. I'm down at the church sorting out an e-mail problem on the server, and there are two teenagers wandering round the church looking for the cache!!!!! Just wandered out and they asked where the box was, I told them that I wouldn't be stupid enough to show the actual location on TV, and they looked quite disappointed, sent them back to look at the web site. That's the biggest laugh... By the way, we did manage to see the programme thanks to some lucky atmospherics and a really big signal booster. Thought it was a really good item. Saw the South Today item in digital clarity on Sky Digital. Regards, Richard
  16. Having just taken a look at this site, it has posed an interesting quandry in light of what is currently happening with Mark's Geocache UK site. I don't know exactly how this site is getting it's data, or even whether it's approved, especially in light of the recent crackdown on web scrapping sites, and that according to Teasels most recent posting here dealing with sites such as this one is delaying the return of Geocache UK. The question is whether we should just ignore the site, whether it should be left to people here to e-mail the site directly if they feel strongly about it, or whether you'd like the moderators to raise the site with Jeremy Irish here. Regards, Richard
  17. Following September 11th police in Las Vegas blew up a cache as a potential bomb. Take a look at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=1094. Richard
  18. Firstly apologies for cutting off the top of Gullivers head, unfortunately my scanner can only manage A4, and the Reading Post article is a bit too big. The scans can be found here for the Reading Post and here for the Hampshire Chronicle. As to copies, Reading Post is no problem in Reading, but Hampshire Chronicles are a bit more difficult to find (only 2 copies in the shop I got it from around here) so one of the people down Winchester way may be able to help there. If anyone else wants me to pick up a Reading Post give me a shout - 25p. Richard [This message was edited by Richard & Beth on January 10, 2003 at 06:53 AM.]
  19. quote:Originally posted by Tim & June:We have had a request to lend the BBC a GPS and ammo box so that they can do a quick bit on Geocaching on the "South Today" programme. I think this program is on at 6:30 on Monday. Not guaranteed to make it to air, but they will try. Tim & June (Winchester) See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong ! It is worth saying that if they do do a bit on Geocaching on South Today, Sky viewers all over the country WILL be able to watch it as South Today is one of the newsrooms featured on the BBC regional service between 6:30pm and 7pm. All you need do is push the red button any time after 6pm, and select South from the regional menu. Anyway, I have just got hold of copies of todays Hampshire Chronicle, and todays Reading Post. The Hampshire Chronicle has a small item with a soggy looking Tim and June. Reading Post has a FULL PAGE with pictures of Gulliver bear, Chris Packham, and a tiny picture of myself and Beth. I'll try and scan those in and upload them somewhere for everybody to see. Richard
  20. I had a call last night about something unrelated, but part way through the conversation they asked when the programme was on as apparently someone else had seen one of our wedding pictures in the trailer! (The BBC wanted to see pictures when they found out we were married in Canada and went caching whilst over there...) I've also just checked my messages and there is a call from the Reading Post wanting to talk to us! Richard
  21. quote:Originally posted by Geo Weasel: Where abouts are you Richard and Beth?? and can you not get it on Teresstrial TV?? We are in Arborfield which is about 5 miles south of Reading. Whilst we could get BBC South when we lived in Finchampstead, we are apparently in a bad reception area in our new house. I had a specialist guy come out, who eventually, got us a half decent picture from Crystal Palace (i.e. London) by using a booster, but could get almost nothing from any transmitters from the south. Hence why we got Sky. It has to be said that the mobile phone reception is not all that hot either - I guess we're in a dip or something! Having said that we certainly can't pick up BBC South where we are at the moment. Currently sat in the office on Beth's parents ranch in Alberta, looking out over slowly falling snow with a maximum temperature of -2'C today... Richard
  22. Ben is possibly right, BBC South have two newsrooms, one in Southampton, the other in Oxford, however only the BBC South Southampton Newsroom goes out on the regional news feed on Sky. If you get BBC South local news on terrestrial you should be able to get the right Inside Out. The BBC only do regional feeds for selected regions in the evening regional news slot on a weekday, Inside Out goes out outside those times, so although you'll get a version on Sky, it will be the London edition rather than the BBC South version. The only way you'll be able to watch it is if your normal aerial can pick up BBC South (which mine can't, I asked for a tape after we were filmed). Richard
  23. Must be Christmas as I'm sat here with a box of tissues and bottle of cough mixture! Seriously, Happy Christmas everybody! Richard
  24. quote:Originally posted by jeremyp:Hmm, I tried hard to find a statement that says that all cache details and logs are copyright Grounded, Inc. but with some trouble. I did find this in the disclaimer: Indeed. I've had a dig around, but I'm still trying to find exactly where I got the information from originally. There is a forum discussion along similar lines here however there is not, as Jeremy has said, anything specific in what is currently on the site, and having done a quick run through old copies of the Geocaching web site using the Wayback Machine at The Internet Archive there doesn't seem to have been before. Most of the more explicit comments and discussions about data ownership I can find are on the long standing GPSStash group on Yahoo which has had several discussions on the subject, and also on the alt.rec.geocaching usenet group which you can trawl through on Google if you wish. Richard [This message was edited by Richard & Beth on December 07, 2002 at 05:46 PM.] [This message was edited by Richard & Beth on December 07, 2002 at 05:48 PM.]
  25. It is worth saying that Geocaching.com has always claimed copyright of their cache details. It has produced some heated discussions in the past, most notably when the Buxley maps were temporarily removed back in June 2001. (see here for the discussion on Slashdot at the time) Richard
×
×
  • Create New...