megalithic Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site? The guidelines clearly don't allow this: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx A few examples: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=454797 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=456349 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=275762 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d3-c302004091fd http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-21a28c69fc7d Is anyone going to do anything about this? Thanks Andy Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) Edited tto remove comment as this thread is not worthy of one Edited September 15, 2006 by mongoose39uk Quote Link to comment
+Donmoore Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I know of a couple that are placed at Ring forts in Northern Ireland. having visited one i don't see it having any effect on the area as it is on part of the Ulster way walk. Quote Link to comment
NickPick Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) Sorry, what's the problem with caches placed near archaeological sites? It's not as if they're placed at the top of the stones or require you to climb over the stone age wall and dig around is it? A quick look at some of the caches you've highlighted, and it seems that they're all placed sensibly away from the ancient site (which the public are allowed to visit). One is under a scots pine, the other in a bush, and another across the moat, over the bank and down some steps to the ditch. I couldn't understand the last one as it was all in german. Edited September 15, 2006 by NickPick Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 With zero finds I wonder if you have actually visited any of these sites? All of the Engish ones are located NEAR ancient sites certainly, but if you check them out they are all in trees, bushes or by a fence, NOT in the sites themselves. As these places are publicly accessible I see no conflict. Quote Link to comment
+Pengy&Tigger Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site? Is anyone going to do anything about this? Thanks Andy Don`t come on the site then, simple answer Quote Link to comment
+jerryo Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Is anyone going to do anything about this? That'd be a "no", then. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Is anyone going to do anything about this? That'd be a "no", then. In this case there is no need to do anything. The caches are not IN ancient sites but are designed to encourage people to visit. If the caches wre hidden IN the stones/Megaliths or whatever then that would be different. We had this discussion 3 years ago with various people and the situation since then has demonstrated that cachers are most definitely very responsible people. I know of only a handful of cases where caches were placed in "forbidden" places and those wre rapidly dealt with. Quote Link to comment
+Geo-Kate Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Looking at the person's profile I see that; 1. They have neither found or hidden any caches. Why are they here? 2. The (vast) majority of their posts are unfounded complaints about caches near ancient stones. 3. One cache they complained about went MIA shortly after their complaint was ignored. Coincidence? I think somebody justs wants to antagonise and cause friction. Better off ignored than worked up about. Quote Link to comment
+The Bolas Heathens Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 We've done the 4th cache mentioned above and it's just not an issue. The cache is situated some way away from the archaeological site and would cause no harm to the site in any way whatsoever. If a cache was right in the middle of the site and perhaps could result in a cacher disturbing the site when searching for the cache then I could understand the problem but the one we did was in no way like this and was situated on land the public are very much encouraged to come and explore. Quote Link to comment
+Boardslider Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Quite possibly a secondary account from a more regular poster to 'hide' behind when posting contentious stuff. Been known to do this myself on less 'serious' fora (the problem is remembering which IP address you were using at the time to make it hard to be 'outed' by moderators ) Quote Link to comment
+The Bongtwashes Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Quite possibly a secondary account from a more regular poster to 'hide' behind when posting contentious stuff. You don't mean a sock puppet account!!! Don't tell The Golem Quote Link to comment
alistair_uk Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site? Is anyone going to do anything about this? Thanks Andy As stated there appears not to be a problem with these caches, and I am more than happy with the explanation given, but I will add that I think you have done the correct thing in highlighting the potential problem. Unless someone highlights a problem then no one will do anything because they did not know something needed doing. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 The original post was not made from a sock puppet account. Quote Link to comment
+PopUpPirate Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 It's right to be concerned that these precious historic sites are left totally undisturbed. Many cachers will litter pick (CITO), so making the place better for the next visitor. Quote Link to comment
+naffita Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Megalithic joined us some time ago when there was a great furore over caches that were near ancient sites, and more to the point, the suggestion that these were great places to set a number of caches. There were a number of posts from his friends on themodernantiquarian site. Megalith was ( is? ) one of the less radical members and was one of the few sane voices from that site. I guess he has no finds because he has no direct interest in geocaching, but has a look at us now and then to see what we are up to. His interest is ancient sites and understandably does not want them being over-run. Having said that, as far as I know, there are no caches actually on or in ancient sites, and we are as much entitled to visit the area as any other member of the public. Quote Link to comment
+Kitty Hawk Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 IMO the concern is valid, but needless since 99% of us would be equally concerned. Funny way of raising the topic though. Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 No problem with the concern. Do have a problem with the way it was raised. Do have a problem with the facts being wrong. Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) Megalithic joined us some time ago when there was a great furore over caches that were near ancient sites, and more to the point, the suggestion that these were great places to set a number of caches. There were a number of posts from his friends on themodernantiquarian site. Megalith was ( is? ) one of the less radical members and was one of the few sane voices from that site. I guess he has no finds because he has no direct interest in geocaching, but has a look at us now and then to see what we are up to. His interest is ancient sites and understandably does not want them being over-run. Having said that, as far as I know, there are no caches actually on or in ancient sites, and we are as much entitled to visit the area as any other member of the public. You beat me to it!! I remember Megalith from the Mod Ants and remember him as being one of those that calmed down what was becoming a... well let's just say it was a bit heated. He spoke with reason and a lot of sense. If the caches he points out (they're not ones I'm familiar with) are in any way detrimental to the monuments concerned then I'm sure our reviewers will take the appropriate action. Totally uncalled for and serves absolutely no purpose. [edited cos I can't spell!!] Edited September 15, 2006 by Pharisee Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) Totally uncalled for and serves absolutely no purpose. Possibly so, but IMHO, so was the OP. Edited September 15, 2006 by rutson Quote Link to comment
+Hi-Tek Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Megalithic joined us some time ago when there was a great furore over caches that were near ancient sites, and more to the point, the suggestion that these were great places to set a number of caches. There were a number of posts from his friends on themodernantiquarian site. Megalith was ( is? ) one of the less radical members and was one of the few sane voices from that site. I guess he has no finds because he has no direct interest in geocaching, but has a look at us now and then to see what we are up to. His interest is ancient sites and understandably does not want them being over-run. Having said that, as far as I know, there are no caches actually on or in ancient sites, and we are as much entitled to visit the area as any other member of the public. Ah, deja-vue (again) Quote Link to comment
+bhodisatva Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Use the monument in whatever way you choose, for * scientific investigation * experiential satisfaction * religious practices So it's ok to do the above but not place a cache anywhere near one, rather hypocritical of you don't you think? Quote Link to comment
Tree Hugger Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site? Because you are a stone hugger. Welcome aboard. TH Edited September 16, 2006 by Tree Hugger Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site? There's a cache near the Colosseum in Rome! Imagine how many people will now turn up and spoil the peace at this beautiful archaeoligical site! On a more serious note...I'm sure our cache pages are also perused by other "sensitive" associations and official bodies to check that there aren't any possible conflicts with cache placement.Would they not contact GC.com or GC UK in a professional manner,rather than post a spurious thread on the forum.The answer is of course they would!...So my reply to magalithic is for him/her/they to either go through the correct channels or s*d off. Edited to state that this is the opinion of a private individual and does not reflect the opinions of GC.com Edited September 16, 2006 by currykev Quote Link to comment
+Donmoore Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I think megalithic is afraid of some no nowt cacher finding something while out caching i.e some kind of fossil or bone or what ever those kinds of folk crawl about on their hands and knees with a toothbrush look for. Would not look good that some group paying millions a year for research find nothing and then the common man finds something of great interest. Quote Link to comment
+NickandAliandEliza Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) I think megalithic is afraid of some no nowt cacher finding something while out caching i.e some kind of fossil or bone or what ever those kinds of folk crawl about on their hands and knees with a toothbrush look for. Would not look good that some group paying millions a year for research find nothing and then the common man finds something of great interest. What is your basis for thinking his motive is this, rather than a concern about the monuments being damaged? Maybe the original post was a bit abrupt, but there is nothing on the cache pages that says you wouldn't have to go rooting around the stones to find the caches. As a significant amount of posts on here are clearly by the 'I do as I please' brigade, I'm not really surprised that people with other interests get concerned. So my reply to magalithic is for him/her/they to either go through the correct channels or s*d off. Nice turn of phrase and will do a lot to build bridges........ PS........he/she/they have been members of this forum since Jan 2003 - take a look at their other postings before questioning motives Edited September 16, 2006 by Nick & Ali Quote Link to comment
+Donmoore Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I think megalithic is afraid of some no nowt cacher finding something while out caching i.e some kind of fossil or bone or what ever those kinds of folk crawl about on their hands and knees with a toothbrush look for. Would not look good that some group paying millions a year for research find nothing and then the common man finds something of great interest. What is your basis for thinking his motive is this, rather than a concern about the monuments being damaged? Maybe the original post was a bit abrupt, but there is nothing on the cache pages that says you wouldn't have to go rooting around the stones to find the caches. As a significant amount of posts on here are clearly by the 'I do as I please' brigade, I'm not really surprised that people with other interests get concerned. Probably the same basis that they used in assuming that the cachers will be damaging the areas in question even though as we have shown that the caches are placed under trees bushes and the like. So my basis? Totatlly unfounded. Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 It's a perfectly valid concern and should be addressed. I can think of caches that are within archalogical features... not close by but either attached to or hidden within them. I guess that as the sites are managed by English Heritage/The National Trust that permission has been given and these bodies accept that the presence of a cache will cause no damage to the monuments. Quote Link to comment
+The Golem Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) I don't know if anyone else has done this but I looked at the link on Megalithic's profile and then searched for any references to Geocaching - here's what I've found so far.... I haven't read every thread yet, I'm just working through them - would anyone care to have a look through themselves... Geocaching references Edited to add: I have a cache at Castlerigg Stone Circle, in the ten months since it was placed it's received about 120 visits, I performed a maintenance visit this week and found that there is little or no impact from these visits. I placed the cache within the field where the stones lie but a respectful distance from them. I don't know the exact visitor numbers but tens of thousands of "normal" people visit every year and trample the ground all around the site, I think the impact of a few hundred cachers over the next few years will be so slight as to be irrelevant. Edited September 16, 2006 by The Golem Quote Link to comment
+Alice Band Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I've been prodded to respond here as I am an archaeologist and have worked for English Heritage. I have been to archaeological sites with caches and every one of those caches were placed in a sensible, safe and above all non-damaging/historical part of the site. Permission is always sought from the site owners who are very aware of foot traffic to sites. One cacher every few days or weeks or so is nothing compared to the 1000's daily who are eroding such sites as West Kennet Long Barrow which IMHO should be closed off to the public to give it a chance to recover from much rabbit and public damage. As I once said to the Pagan Federation at a conference many years ago, an archaeological monument is forever, not just a Solstice, and in my experience cachers tend to respect such sites much more than the average member of the public does. I personally have no problem with caches placed near sites, nor do the professional staff I have spoken to at various sites. Moreover, some welcome caches to increase visitor numbers which is sadly lacking at some monuments and possibly increase much needed revenue. Its a different matter however if the cache owner moved stones/damaged the monument to hide it. To date no one has done this but if they did they would have me to answer to Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Its a different matter however if the cache owner moved stones/damaged the monument to hide it. To date no one has done this but if they did they would have me to answer to ...and the UK reviewers! Quote Link to comment
lakeuk Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I don't know if anyone else has done this but I looked at the link on Megalithic's profile and then searched for any references to Geocaching - here's what I've found so far.... I haven't read every thread yet, I'm just working through them - would anyone care to have a look through themselves... I've had a scan through his previous thread and the majority are advertising his site which I've not taken the pleasure in visiting, his other threads are on the same lines as this on which I believe are an alternative advert for his site since his rant has no basis considering the high likely hood he's not visited any of the caches he's quoting - didn't work with me Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I don't know if anyone else has done this but I looked at the link on Megalithic's profile and then searched for any references to Geocaching - here's what I've found so far.... I haven't read every thread yet, I'm just working through them - would anyone care to have a look through themselves... I've had a scan through his previous thread and the majority are advertising his site which I've not taken the pleasure in visiting, his other threads are on the same lines as this on which I believe are an alternative advert for his site since his rant has no basis considering the high likely hood he's not visited any of the caches he's quoting - didn't work with me Maybe someone could direct vistors to megalithic's site to GC.com PS..I stick by my earlier turn of phrase! Quote Link to comment
+Alice Band Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Its a different matter however if the cache owner moved stones/damaged the monument to hide it. To date no one has done this but if they did they would have me to answer to ...and the UK reviewers! Now that would be scary! Quote Link to comment
+The Golem Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) It's quite a good web site actually - there are loads of excellent sites just ripe for placing caches that I never knew about until this thread was started - I've found around 100 just in Cumbria. Thanks for the link to your site, if you're stuck for somewhere to hide a cache why not take a look folks - there's bound to be one near you, they even supply a handy grid reference... Edited September 16, 2006 by The Golem Quote Link to comment
+Alice Band Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 It's quite a good web site actually I must have missed something as I cant see what you're referring to Golem Gis a link! Quote Link to comment
+The Golem Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Here There's a search box in the top right corner - I just entered Cumbria and it came up with over a hundred potential new cache sites - it's fantastic! Quote Link to comment
+Team Maddie UK Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Approx 30 in Shropshire one or two of which I know already have caches at suitably safe distances Martin Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Here There's a search box in the top right corner - I just entered Cumbria and it came up with over a hundred potential new cache sites - it's fantastic! I'd be too scared too. There might be a posse of Archaeoligical Outlaws waiting with large stones. Or even worse...the Pope's 21st Century Catholic Crusaders. PS...couldn't really do an off topic thread regarding today's comments by the Pope. Quote Link to comment
+Alice Band Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Nice Link, thank you Golem for placing it I see that there is a site less than a mile from me and its not mentioned in any of the records I've dealt with over the years. Will pop over later to look at it. Quote Link to comment
+perth pathfinders Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site? A few examples: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=454797 Is anyone going to do anything about this? Thanks Andy Yup!! A BIG THANK YOU TO ANDY FOR ADVERTISING THIS CACHE!! Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Or even worse...the Pope's 21st Century Catholic Crusaders. PS...couldn't really do an off topic thread regarding today's comments by the Pope. Let's keep this On Topic eh? Quote Link to comment
megalithic Posted September 16, 2006 Author Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) Ah, you always make me so welcome, it's touching Do I have to quote from your own guidelines which say http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx "Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive): <snip> * Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans. " I didn't write these rules did I? I have raised the point that this does not seem to be happening. If people think there are caches in and around a monument there is a chance things may be disturbed by people looking in nooks and crannies etc. 99% of these sites have never been excavated, the point being that no one knows what might be there to be disturbed. I had a discussion with a few of the more senior members here a couple of years ago and what they came up with as a reasonable compromise was for caches not to be put within 100m of ancient/archaeological sites (apart from virtual caches of course which could be the site itself) Thank you to those who have made kind comments about our web site, and I encourage you to visit the sites we list. To repeat, whether you agree with them or not, I'm merely pointing out the guidelines of geocaching.com. Andy Edited September 16, 2006 by megalithic Quote Link to comment
+perth pathfinders Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 (edited) Thanks Megalithic, and your comments noted. However, If you look at the Streetmap link on these caches, you will see that it is infact not Geocachers who are causing the extra vehicular traffic!! Right through the Middle Three Stones Standing Edited September 16, 2006 by perth pathfinders Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 "Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive): <snip> * Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans. " Perfectly reasonable sentiments, I'm sure everyone will agree. However, the guideline you quoted clearly states on, which, AFAIK, none of these caches are. I have to say, the 100 m radius agreement is not one I'd ever heard of, so not sure who it was agreed by! Bt looking at some of the caches above, there are public roads considerably closer than 100 m, and I'm sure they're doing more damage than some cachers.... As has been said, it is perfectly fine to be concerned about historical monuments, but I'm sure you'll find that so are almost all cachers! Dave Quote Link to comment
+jerryo Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 If people think there are caches in and around a monument there is a chance things may be disturbed by people looking in nooks and crannies etc. The point really is that anyone looking for a cache that's acceptably (as policed by the moderators) "near" the area won't "think" there's a cache in the ruins at all. Most of us use GPS to tell us where the cache is to within a few feet and all the ones in such areas that I’ve done have been well away from potential problems. The concern would be relevant if there were caches badly located but it isn’t as there aren’t. Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 So, OP, in answer to your subtitle; No, because there is nothing for anything to be done about. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Do I have to quote from your own guidelines which say.........etc. No thank you, I am aware of the guidelines. By now you should have seen that the caches you quote are not actually placed in the monuments. There is no problem and no guidelines have been breached. If however we are informed of any cache which DOES breach a guideline, including the "Ancient Monument" one we will take action. By all means if you have concerns about a particular cache please feel free to contact any of the reviewers through our profile or by leaving a "Needs Archived" note on the cache in question. As others have said, your website is very good and I will no doubt be using it when planning local walks. Quote Link to comment
+Firth of Forth Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Why is it, within about 5 minutes of coming on this site, I can usually find a cache placed at a sensitive archaeological site? The guidelines clearly don't allow this: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx A few examples: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=454797 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=456349 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=275762 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d3-c302004091fd http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-21a28c69fc7d Is anyone going to do anything about this? Thanks Andy You didn't read the cache pages carefully enough. As far as the one placed by Jack Aubrey and myself is concerned, the cache page makes it entirely clear that the stone has been moved and now sits on a public path. The cache is beside the stone and not attached to it or to anything which is associated with the stone. If you visit a cache site and have concerns about a cache's placement, fair enough to raise those with the approvers. To object, in a rather abrupt tone, without discrimination is really not helpful. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.