Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Moote

Do You Know What A Drystone Wall Is?

Recommended Posts

 

I have a thought that the GAGB probably didn't have expert knowledge of the types of drystone walls, so what were they intending or reacting to when the rule was drawn.

 

It could be to do with safety or the fact that someone pays for that wall to exist and will have to pay for it to be repaired as slowly dozens of cachers move stones out in the manner of a stoney Jenga game.

 

If there is a distinction between dry stone and mortar topped, and surely the permission of the wall's owner

 

I obviously don't know what GAGB had in mind when the rule was drawn up (too new for that) but I would suggest that it is to prevent damage to an existing object. The fact that it is a DSW, and therefore historical, is incidental to the problem of pulling stones out, and this problem would hold true for a mortar topped wall. By the same token, I would object to any cache that either required, encouraged, or suggested that finders should begin dismantling an object, be it a hundreds of years old, or built yesterday.

 

Surely we should keep in m,ind the way muggles would interpret our actions, and such actions are not going to win us any allies with landowners etc...

 

Note that I don;t knnow anything about the cache in question, so I'm not making any comment about that!

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post

Drystone wall or not is not really relevant. The point is that whatever the guidelines say we should do nothing which could damage other people's property or lead to others doing the same.

Edited by John Stead

Share this post


Link to post

Drystone wall or not is not really relevant. The point is that whatever the guidelines say we should do nothing which could damage other people's property or lead to others doing the same.

Personally when I found the cache, there was little to no chance it could cause damage. But this never the less is a most valid point John

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, I have skim read this thread and I have this comment to make:

 

[Dons flame proof garments; goggles; big boots and gloves!]

 

Aren't Guidelines exactly what they say they are?

 

Isn't GC.com ultimately responsible for making the rules of caches placed on their site, not GAGB?

 

What about those cachers who do not visit GAGB or do not recognise GAGB?

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post

I think I ought to point out something that seems to have been overlooked in this discussion.

 

My "job" along with Eckington is to review caches for publication on Geocaching.com. We review them against the Geocaching.com guidelines, NOT GAGB guidelines. GAGB has no official standing as far as Geocaching.com is concerned and we are not bound by what they decide amongst themselves. Neither for that matter are we bound by any other interest group.

 

That being said, we consider what GAGB does is good for caching in the UK and the guidelines they have formulated amongst themselves have some useful elements. When Geocaching.com were putting their guidelines together the sport was essentially US based and the guidelines were designed to deal with the situation in the US. As the sport has developed into a worldwide activity it is recognised that it would be almost impossible to design a set of guidelines to cover every eventuality. So we have LOCAL reviewers who (hopefully) understand local conditions and interpret the Geocaching.com guidelines appropriately.

 

As an example we choose a very loose intepretation of the guideline/rule that forbids caches within 150ft of active railway lines or bans caches in/on/under most bridges as the situation is different here to the US. In the same way we are aware of certain local restictions that were not considered in the Geocaching.com guidelines. These would include the special legal status of SSSI's etc. and the unique nature of Drystone walls.

 

So to get a cache listed on Geocaching.com you only have to be a user of Geocaching.com (not GAGB, Geocacheuk.com or any other site) and abide by the Geocaching.com guidelines. You also have to satisfy us that you have used common sense with respect to local conditions. In addition you need to satisfy us that you have complied with any special conditions imposed by the local landowner (such as The Forestry Commission, etc.)

 

Where a landowner has specified that, for instance, a cache can only be placed on their land as long as the extra GAGB gudelines are followed then we will always abide by those extra restrictions. However the majority of caches do not have those restrictions and for those we will fall back on that good old standby - "Common Sense".

 

So as you can see, you rely on Eckington and I using our judgement when reviewing caches, not a rigid set of rules. The result may not be perfect but I personally think it is a dam.n.ed( <_< ) sight better than blindly trying to follow a set of unforgiving rules.

 

Finally let me repeat, we think GAGB is a good and useful part of the UK caching scene and recognise all the hard work they have done in getting a large number of agreements with landowners across the country. We continue to enjoy a good working relationship with them.

Share this post


Link to post

Drystone wall or not is not really relevant. The point is that whatever the guidelines say we should do nothing which could damage other people's property or lead to others doing the same.

Personally when I found the cache, there was little to no chance it could cause damage. But this never the less is a most valid point John

Having revisited the cache tonight, I have moved Emma a few meters across the road. Moote is correct "there was little to no chance it could cause damage", however, there was a wobbly stone on the road side of the wall, which I suspect a number of people had tried first. In isolation that is not going to affect the integrity of the wall, however, repeated removal of this and perhaps other likely candidates on the road side of the wall might have a negative cumulative affect on the wall.

 

Note also, that in addition to being mortar-topped, the wall is also mortar-ended:

 

94839f7d-5b86-4552-b14e-8c7eb0472f64.jpg

Edited by BexyBear

Share this post


Link to post

Drystone wall or not is not really relevant. The point is that whatever the guidelines say we should do nothing which could damage other people's property or lead to others doing the same.

Personally when I found the cache, there was little to no chance it could cause damage. But this never the less is a most valid point John

Having revisited the cache tonight, I have moved Emma a few meters across the road. Moote is correct "there was little to no chance it could cause damage", however, there was a wobbly stone on the road side of the wall, which I suspect a number of people had tried first. In isolation that is not going to affect the integrity of the wall, however, repeated removal of this and perhaps other likely candidates on the road side of the wall might have a negative cumulative affect on the wall.

 

Note also, that in addition to being mortar-topped, the wall is also mortar-ended:

 

94839f7d-5b86-4552-b14e-8c7eb0472f64.jpg

 

This look like a dry stone wall to anyone?

Share this post


Link to post

Drystone wall or not is not really relevant. The point is that whatever the guidelines say we should do nothing which could damage other people's property or lead to others doing the same.

Personally when I found the cache, there was little to no chance it could cause damage. But this never the less is a most valid point John

Having revisited the cache tonight, I have moved Emma a few meters across the road. Moote is correct "there was little to no chance it could cause damage", however, there was a wobbly stone on the road side of the wall, which I suspect a number of people had tried first. In isolation that is not going to affect the integrity of the wall, however, repeated removal of this and perhaps other likely candidates on the road side of the wall might have a negative cumulative affect on the wall.

 

Note also, that in addition to being mortar-topped, the wall is also mortar-ended:

 

94839f7d-5b86-4552-b14e-8c7eb0472f64.jpg

 

This look like a dry stone wall to anyone?

 

i will comment on the last remark only.

 

to me this wall appears to be of drystone origin which has been morter ended and mortor topped to prolong its life. I may also be wrong on this as i am neither a farmer, drystone wall builder or knowlegable local. most drystone walls i have seen use the stones on their sides/ends and wedge each other and the likelyhood of a single person being able to physically remove a stone from the wall while it is intact is very remote due to the huge amount of weight on each stone lower in the wall. however, to contradict my own statement i observe that the stones in this wall seem to be placed and stacked on top of each other in a way that may not mean the wall has the same structural properties of a dry stone wall, making it more vulnerable to lateral movement and collapse.

 

however, the point i believe remains this:

 

is there the potential of damaging the wall in the short, medium or long term by using it as a cache stash. I would guess that the answer to this would have to be yes. unless the wall was constructed with the express requirement that a particular stone should be made removable. i doubt that this was the case and as such the wall depends upon all stones in structure to maintain integrity.

 

someon must have felt the wall was vulnerable or it would not have been topped and ended.

 

at the end of the day regardless of my personal feelings i would bow to the wishes of a moderator. full stop.

 

that is all :mad:

 

kind regards

Paul

Share this post


Link to post

Quite happy with the moderators decision.

 

I would say that the hole that the cache is/was in appeared to be part of the construction. Short of a crowbar and sledgehammer I would be hard pushed to make a dent in this wall. Several cars appearing to have bounced of it.

 

I would also question the motives of some people involved in this (not people who have posted BTW).

 

Anyway, it's archived so not much point pushing the point.

 

(posting from a personal view, my opinions on this point should not be taken as GAGB policy)

Share this post


Link to post

After the concern last week about whether or not Emma's TB Hotel was in a drystone wall or not, I went out on Friday (been out of internet reach since) and found it and can happily say that I can see no reason for concern at its present location. :laughing:

The only qualification is that anyone who knows me will realize that it was not so easy for me to retrieve!! :D

And I have asked the owner to consider the title as it is not now really a TB Hotel in my view. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...