Important Announcement re London Caches

[+Belplasca]

OK, I can accept that - but I'm not the most upset at the way this appears to have been handled.

 

Fistly, as far as I can see there ase very few cachers involved, so it really wouldn't have taken much to have dropped them an e-mail warning them of the situation.

 

Secondly, by archiving the caches, you seem to be indicating that you don't trust the owners to act responsibly over this, when simply making them Unavailable would have done the job of taking them out of circulation.

 

Even with them archived, there are likely to be cachers coming to London with printouts - maybe from America or other countries - who will still go looking for them.

 

By archiving them, it has made it rather more long winded for us to make the changes to the cache pages, since you have to be in a position respond to a request to unarchive before I can do it.

 

Under the circumstances, I'm taking my time over working out just how best to mark the caches. Incidentally, was it intended that the marking should be on the outside of the cache container. Because that is not what the agreement seems to say. If it's OK to mark the cache contents, then that will make it easier to ensure the integrity of these sensitive caches.

 

I hope you can understand that I'm not really wingeing over this - as I said above

And all credit to the negotiators - on both sides - for reaching a consensus.

, just trying to see if it couldn't have been handled slightly better so we can all learn from the experience.

 

Bob

[Deceangi]

Fistly, as far as I can see there ase very few cachers involved, so it really wouldn't have taken much to have dropped them an e-mail warning them of the situation.

 

I believe that you did receive a private warning of what was happening, And as the reviewer team did not have a list of which caches were affected until we started the whole process, emailing everyone would have delayed this.

 

Secondly, by archiving the caches, you seem to be indicating that you don't trust the owners to act responsibly over this, when simply making them Unavailable would have done the job of taking them out of circulation.

 

Even with them archived, there are likely to be cachers coming to London with printouts - maybe from America or other countries - who will still go looking for them.

 

By archiving them, it has made it rather more long winded for us to make the changes to the cache pages, since you have to be in a position respond to a request to unarchive before I can do it.

 

As the whole issue resulted from the fact that 2 cachers, were stopped and searched by the police. Due to the way they were behaving, and as one of the worries of the officer who made contact, was that Armed Officers might be called out next time. We decided that immediate action to reduce the No searching for these caches need to be affected immediately [just look at the No of logs made to caches which are Disabled by those who have deliberately ignored that fact despite being aware of it] . You only have to look back in time to see instances of were due to misunderstanding, innocent civilians have been shoot and killed by the security forces [both Police and Military].

 

One email confirming that you will bring all affected caches into compliance with the agreement, is the only immediate action needed to have them Unarchived and disabled.

 

Under the circumstances, I'm taking my time over working out just how best to mark the caches. Incidentally, was it intended that the marking should be on the outside of the cache container. Because that is not what the agreement seems to say. If it's OK to mark the cache contents, then that will make it easier to ensure the integrity of these sensitive caches.

 

Please remember we are under a time constant to bring all caches into compliance with this agreement. As it states in the agreement, all caches are to be clearly marked as a "Geocache", this means on the outside of the container, marking the inside is not clearly marking it. As we had it pointed out to us, it would be a virtually impossible task, to clearly mark the out side of a Nano container with the word Geocache, hence after a search we came up with the geo x logo. This can easily used to mark a container in such a way as to insure it meets the agreement, but is not obvious to muggles. As has already been pointed out, I've a magnetic Nano, with the geo x scratched on the top, from 2m it's impossible to see. But on closer inspection is clearly marked. Examples of the geo x logo will be provided in the data sent to the officer.

 

just trying to see if it couldn't have been handled slightly better so we can all learn from the experience.

 

This situation is unique as far as I can tell, in the history of geocaching, as it has not involved a landowner, or a request to remove a cache on security grounds. But to reach a agreement with a Unit of a major police force, who are tasked with the security of a extremely high risk area. To not only allow geocaches to remain in situ, but also the safety of those searching for the caches.

 

As for handling the situation, all 3 of us Eckington, Lactodorum and myself. Believe we have handled it in the best way we can, especially as our priority's have had to be first the safety of Geocachers in the affected areas, and secondly for geocaching to continue in the these areas without causing a major incident, with the resulting chaos. Whilst under a time constraint, if you compare this agreement to that negotiated with the New Forest. That took over 12 months to complete and covered I believe 18 caches initial, this agreement had to be negotiated in one phone call, and full compliance within a couple of weeks, without us even knowing which caches were involved.

[+Belplasca]

this agreement had to be negotiated in one phone call, and full compliance within a couple of weeks, without us even knowing which caches were involved.

I'm sorry. I hadn't realised that the Police had been that unreasonable. I assumed that, had you asked, they would have allowed you to carry out a proper risk assessment. Under the circumstances described, you did very well.

 

However, due to the nature of the caches, and the time constraint that you now say is mandatory, I feel unable to just drop everything and go and see to the caches. I must therefore give you permission to remove my Green Park caches.

 

Sorry.

 

Bob

[Lactodorum]

I'm sorry. I hadn't realised that the Police had been that unreasonable.

IMHO it's not the police who are being unreasonable here Bob

However, due to the nature of the caches, and the time constraint that you now say is mandatory, I feel unable to just drop everything and go and see to the caches. I must therefore give you permission to remove my Green Park caches.

 

Sorry.

 

Bob

As the cache owner YOU are responsible for maintenance of YOUR caches. If you feel you are unable to carry out what in effect is "maintenance" demanded by this country's security forces I am most disappointed. If you are unwilling or unable to bring them into line with the police's demands I would point out that YOU are responsible for removing them, not the Reviewing team.

[+Jaz666]

Sorry to stir the hornet's nest so to speak, but it does say this in the archiving note on each of the affected caches.

 

We will check all cache pages after a 3 week period, and reserve the right to arrange for a agent acting on behalf of the UK Reviewer Team to remove those not meeting the above conditions so as to remain in compliance with the agreement with the Specialist Search Unit-Metropolitan Police Force.

 

Perhaps a re-wording would avoid any future confusion over who would be responsible for physically removing any caches.

[+Sensei TSKC]

Good point, Jaz666.

 

Does that mean the agent will remove the physical cache or the cache page?

 

Hmmm.

[Lactodorum]

Sorry if I was unclear. The intention is that the cache owner is responsible for removing the cache container in the event it cannot be made to comply with the Police's requirements.

 

However, there is always the chance that the owner cannot be contacted, or cannot or will not remove the container (that's not the case here thankfully ). In those circumstances we have to Reserve the right to arrange for its removal.

[+Pieman]

this agreement had to be negotiated in one phone call, and full compliance within a couple of weeks, without us even knowing which caches were involved.

I'm sorry. I hadn't realised that the Police had been that unreasonable. I assumed that, had you asked, they would have allowed you to carry out a proper risk assessment. Under the circumstances described, you did very well.

 

However, due to the nature of the caches, and the time constraint that you now say is mandatory, I feel unable to just drop everything and go and see to the caches. I must therefore give you permission to remove my Green Park caches.

 

Sorry.

 

Bob

It's a shame that these caches are going, but I think the police have acted with remarkable good sense.

 

Putting myself in the cache owners position here, I would certainly either comply with the requests or remove the caches- and if I was unable to remove them in the timescale I would ask for help on this forum for local cachers to remove them for me.

[+scottpa100]

It's a shame that these caches are going, but I think the police have acted with remarkable good sense.

 

Putting myself in the cache owners position here, I would certainly either comply with the requests or remove the caches- and if I was unable to remove them in the timescale I would ask for help on this forum for local cachers to remove them for me.

 

This is a sensible comment. There is plenty 'oh couldn't have been done this way, and what if people were contacted this way' but the police have a job to do and as have the reviewers and I think if we just stop.... and think... a very reasonable middle ground has been found.

 

If people are unable to maintain the caches, then get them advertised on the forums asking for others to look after them, and after, I don't know, 4 weeks, no response, archive the cache. Then a new cache can be located in the vicinity by someone else.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

I am unaware of where any of the affected caches are located as I hate urban caches.

 

There seems to be a growing attitude within the geocaching community however that "I may place a chache anywhere"

 

All land and property belongs to someone and if you do not have express permission for placement you as placer assume all responsibility for any consequences.

 

The reviewers have managed to quell this situation in a very short time scale. They are volunteers who seem to devote extreme hours for our recreational enjoyment. Please assist them in all they do for us.

 

The consequence of not managing this incident in a timely manner will be the liklihood of damaging the image of geocaching nationwide.

 

Many of us geocachers are professional persons lets all behave as such.

 

I give my full support to our three reviews and hope many more will also.

 

Help geocaching continue by behaving professionally!

[+currykev]

..Here is a copy of my note to Deceangi sent this evening....

"Sir,

due to the current situation involving 7 of my London caches,I have also decided to archive another 10 that may prove troublesome for future cachers.

I will expand on my reasoning in the forums at a later time,as that seems to be the preferred area for information for all concerned.

ALL said caches have now been removed."

 

That should keep Malpas Wanderer happy.

[+Simply Paul]

That's a shame Kev, but I think I understand your reasons. There comes a point where the work involved in maintaining a cache outweighs the pleasure of owning it, and then the only responsible thing to do is archive it - or put it up for adoption. Your cache, your call, but personally I'd avoid archiving any caches I myself have adopted, without offering them on for adoption. I don't know if any of the ones you've 'rested' fall into this category. I'm just saying

[+currykev]

Thanks SP..All caches that I personally archived were mine and mine only!

Edited...but if anyone would like to plant a few new ones in St James's Park then best wishes.but I would not recommend it due to the ridiculously high "muggles in blue" activity.

Edited February 1, 2007 by currykev

[+sbell111]

I'll admit that I came late to the thread and merely skimmed it, but could someone please explain to me why this agreement is bad.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

..Here is a copy of my note to Deceangi sent this evening....

"Sir,

due to the current situation involving 7 of my London caches,I have also decided to archive another 10 that may prove troublesome for future cachers.

I will expand on my reasoning in the forums at a later time,as that seems to be the preferred area for information for all concerned.

ALL said caches have now been removed."

 

That should keep Malpas Wanderer happy.

 

My comments were not directed at any individual and apologies if you thought they were.

 

The exponential growth of the pastime does seem however to create the temptation to stretch or bend the few rules we have to the limits.

 

The reviewers seem to come in for a great deal of stick and the extra work these protracted debates entail.

 

One hopes the pastime continues for many years and that we can keep as many caches active as possible.

 

I'm not particurlarly happy that you have decided to archive your caches, I would have preferred it if most of the affected caches had been able to be modified to comply with the new requirements but you obviously think some will not.

 

Sincerly hope you are able to continue to place cahces which indeed fit the requirements, and enjoy your caching activities to the full.

[+sbell111]

I'll admit that I came late to the thread and merely skimmed it, but could someone please explain to me why this agreement is bad.

I guess not.

[+Tizzie]

When I read the original posting on GCUK I was amazed that something had been agreed so quickly - common sense has prevailed all round, and well done to all concerned. So some folks aren't too happy about it - well, at least geocaching in the UK capital is still allowed. As someone has already said, it's amazing we haven't come to the attention of the police before. And I don't think there would have been so many grumbles about this if the 2 cachers had been stopped around the time of the security alerts over the last couple of years.

 

On a personal note, I shall be working in London this weekend, and expect to have some free time on Sunday. I ran a couple of pocket queries this morning, hopefully they will still be up-to-date! I certainly won't be lurking in any location for very long. If I don't spot it almost immediatley, then its time to move on. At least a few virtuals should be added to my list of smilies! Will I be the only one caching around Westminster or The Strand on Sunday?

[+kewfriend]

To have opened the issue up for discussion, before making a agreement with the Met Police, would have resulted in the permanent Archiving and uplifting of all affected caches, before any agreement could have been reached.

Very sensible reply.

 

In the end it will all blow over because (of course) many caches have been there for several years and represent no new intrusion. No new risk is involved and merely because the police are now aware does not mean any new risk is generated. Geocachers will always report 'odd' finds, but if they are more likely to do so now than they were last week - it is conceivable the areas are more secure as a result.

 

We do not live (yet) in a police state so the police do not have a right to knowledge about our activities. However we are all (hopefully) good citizens and will render relevant assistance to the police when they seek it. I would submit that we should not have a formal agreement with the police but that we are more than happy to answer their questions - as and when. The guidelines our moderators will use are theirs and theirs alone to be used at their discretion - and may be added to or withdrawn whenever the moderators see fit.

 

In my very very humble view, we must not surrender our civil liberties and pastimes solely at the behest of claims of 'security'. Inevitably 'security' is predicated on what 'might' happen - not what has happened (when it becomes a criminal act). Common sense and a sense of proportion are needed. Generally I think the team is doing well, but I do suggest always remembering 'that sense of proportion'.

 

I am not a free man in a prison cell - but neither am I free if 'security' has made my whole life a prison cell.

Edited February 1, 2007 by kewfriend

[+sbell111]

... In my very very humble view, we must not surrender our civil liberties and pastimes solely at the behest of claims of 'security'. Inevitably 'security' is predicated on what 'might' happen - not what has happened (when it becomes a criminal act). Common sense and a sense of proportion are needed. Generally I think the team is doing well, but I do suggest always remembering 'that sense of proportion'. ...

Granted, I am not familiar with what your civil liberties are. However, how have they been infringed on? The agreement does not state that you cannot place or find a geocache in any location. It merely asks that you work below the radar of the general public and let the authorities know about the caches so they won't over-react to them.

 

How does this limit your freedoms? How is this bad, at all?

 

Heck, if any area tells me that I can freely place caches as long as I let them know about what I place I will cheer in joy.

[+Captain Gore-tex]

Sorry but the last post is nonsence. If the police have to waste any time on a false security alert due to geocaching then we, as a collective responsible team, have lost the plot. Clearly from the events in Birmingham over the last couple of days they have far more important things to do than worry about suspicious behaviour, particularly in London, due to some hidden plastic containers.

The reviewers are right, no argument, lets move on.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Let's be realistic: London is a terrorist-ruled zone. So it's not surprising that the police will arrest anyone who appears to be at all suspicious, in their difficult battle against these groups. It's no longer a "free" area (I get the impression that you are filmed almost everywhere you go, for instance). The events in Boston today show how much our freedom level is now dictated by terrorist threats.

 

That there is an offer to allow some kind of geocaching is pretty reasonable in such an area.

 

However, I can fully understand any geocacher who feels that they don't want to be held responsible for maintaining a cache under such circumstances, and I can sympathise with those that feel uncomfortable with the restrictions and wish to archive their caches.

[+currykev]

And next weekend...I will mostly be out caching!...(in the country)

Sorted!

[nobby.nobbs]

nice to see that the consensus from america is that it is a good idea and agreement as well.....

 

yes this deal is a little bit of hassle but it doesn't infringe our liberties in any way. all it really does is help make the very difficult job of protecting the public somewhat easier for the police.

[+Team Madders]

We've undertaken a number of these caches over the last few months, when on short trips to London.

 

Not normally great fans of micros (living in the Isle of Man, we are lucky enough to have a great variety, with many involving a nice walk and an ammo can at the end) - but, some of these micros were great, as they took you to unusual places - and importantly helped us to get to know London a bit. It was much more fun to walk a mile and pick up a couple of caches than spend any time on the Underground.

 

One very noticeable thing was that caching would involve a lot more stealth than we are used to - and decisions were quickly and easily made to avoid a site if there was any chance that we would look furtive or suspicious.

 

Obviously disappointed that some caches have closed - but agreement that the GAGB steps were necessary unfortunately. Its up to everyone to work within this - some people may quite rightly feel that they don't wish to - but hopefully this will not lead to any significant impact on the numbers or quality of caches out there (assuming that others may take their place).

[+currykev]

Thanks for some great input.I too believe the situation was ultimately handled by our UK administrators in a positive way,especially considering the urgency that was involved."Caching made safe" is the ultimate end result.On a personal level,being the owner of many a Central London cache I had decided to archive the ones where I feel that future cachers may have a possible problem with the authorities while in pursuit of a logsheet.This decision wasn't taken lightly by me,as I had put in many hours of research and maintenance.

Urban London caches are always prone to muggle activity,just because of the number of people this city accommodates.But the world is a big place,so I will endeavour to arrange a few new hides in the future.Anyway,I have a few spare micros now. ..I will also endeavour to "make light" every now and then as I am prone to do. Caching is bigger than all of us!..Let's be safe out there!

Edited February 2, 2007 by currykev

[Deceangi]

The first 2 caches to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Police Force-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement have been enabled

 

Parliament View (London) GC10DNC

 

Abbot John Islip GCZBV7

 

both owned by Dorsetgal & GeoDog . I'd like to thank Zoomlens, for undertaking the required maintenance visit to mark the container and provide photographs.,On Dorsetgals behalf, whilst she is across the pond caching in the US

[+Sensei TSKC]

The first 2 caches to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Police Force-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement have been enabled

May I please be pedantic for a mo'?

 

It is Metropolitan Police Service-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement. The word Force was replaced at the same time we were informed that we deal with clients and not the general public!

 

i have other views on this but as it's not Geocaching related, I will not go any further but I am looking forward to my retirement in 18 months time.

[+Captain Gore-tex]

so are we (sorry sarge)

[+sssss]

I am looking forward to my retirement in 18 months time.

 

i look forward to reading your interesting stories in LPP

[+ZoomLens]

The first 2 caches to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Police Force-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement have been enabled

 

Parliament View (London) GC10DNC

 

Abbot John Islip GCZBV7

 

both owned by Dorsetgal & GeoDog . I'd like to thank Zoomlens, for undertaking the required maintenance visit to mark the container and provide photographs.,On Dorsetgals behalf, whilst she is across the pond caching in the US

 

After absailing in to the cache locations, avoiding the heavily armed spies (that last bit ain't a joke - there were coppers going up and down the river on a boat with guns!! - They wouldn't let me have one. ) the deed has been done to get them up and running.

 

Given the extreme risk to personal safety - approaching black boxes hidden within sight of two important national landmarks that were not clearly labelled as geocaches and could quite easily be something altogether more sinister (!!) - it's a shame they aren't FTF.... still waiting for that elusive first FTF...

[+Belplasca]

After absailing in to the cache locations, avoiding the heavily armed spies (that last bit ain't a joke - there were coppers going up and down the river on a boat with guns!! - They wouldn't let me have one. ) the deed has been done to get them up and running.

 

Given the extreme risk to personal safety - approaching black boxes hidden within sight of two important national landmarks that were not clearly labelled as geocaches and could quite easily be something altogether more sinister (!!) - it's a shame they aren't FTF.... still waiting for that elusive first FTF...

It's this kind of situation that has led me to simply remove the caches in Green Park.

 

If it really is as dangerous, both to National Security and Cachers' personal safety as I have been led to believe, then I simply don't wish to be in any position of responsibility with regards to caches in the area.

 

Green Park is now a cache free zone.

 

Bob

[+kewfriend]

This thread rumbles on .... I just wish everyone had a sense of proportion, and stopped winding each other up. Its amazing what a hornets nest [] has been stirred by the careless antics of a couple of American? geocachers. Stay cool everyone and it will all drift back to normality.

[+Haggis Hunter]

The first 2 caches to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Police Force-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement have been enabled

May I please be pedantic for a mo'?

 

It is Metropolitan Police Service-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement. The word Force was replaced at the same time we were informed that we deal with clients and not the general public!

 

i have other views on this but as it's not Geocaching related, I will not go any further but I am looking forward to my retirement in 18 months time.

Don't you just love the play on words?? Does it really make a lot of difference for the outcome of Geocaching in London or any other City?

[+Sensei TSKC]

The first 2 caches to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Police Force-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement have been enabled

May I please be pedantic for a mo'?

 

It is Metropolitan Police Service-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement. The word Force was replaced at the same time we were informed that we deal with clients and not the general public!

 

i have other views on this but as it's not Geocaching related, I will not go any further but I am looking forward to my retirement in 18 months time.

Don't you just love the play on words?? Does it really make a lot of difference for the outcome of Geocaching in London or any other City?

Actually, it does!! There is NO SUCH THING as The Metropolitan Police FORCE!!!!

 

The Police no longer enforce the law, they serve the public.

[+Haggis Hunter]

The first 2 caches to be in compliance with the Metropolitan Police Force-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement have been enabled

May I please be pedantic for a mo'?

 

It is Metropolitan Police Service-Specialist Search Unit Geocache Agreement. The word Force was replaced at the same time we were informed that we deal with clients and not the general public!

 

i have other views on this but as it's not Geocaching related, I will not go any further but I am looking forward to my retirement in 18 months time.

Don't you just love the play on words?? Does it really make a lot of difference for the outcome of Geocaching in London or any other City?

Actually, it does!! There is NO SUCH THING as The Metropolitan Police FORCE!!!!

 

The Police no longer enforce the law, they serve the public.

Ooops SORRY Obviously touched on a sore point there???????

[+Sensei TSKC]

Ooops SORRY Obviously touched on a sore point there???????

Too right!!!!

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

After absailing in to the cache locations, avoiding the heavily armed spies (that last bit ain't a joke - there were coppers going up and down the river on a boat with guns!! - They wouldn't let me have one. ) the deed has been done to get them up and running.

 

Given the extreme risk to personal safety - approaching black boxes hidden within sight of two important national landmarks that were not clearly labelled as geocaches and could quite easily be something altogether more sinister (!!) - it's a shame they aren't FTF.... still waiting for that elusive first FTF...

It's this kind of situation that has led me to simply remove the caches in Green Park.

 

If it really is as dangerous, both to National Security and Cachers' personal safety as I have been led to believe, then I simply don't wish to be in any position of responsibility with regards to caches in the area.

 

Green Park is now a cache free zone.

 

Bob

 

Zoom, sadly, I think your irony got lost somewhere ...

[+currykev]

Its amazing what a hornets nest [] has been stirred by the careless antics of a couple of American? geocachers.

 

Duck!..Friendly fire approaching!