Faulty description

[+YanniG]

Hello !

Recently I was in London and I tried some caches.Besides the ones that I had planned to look for, were the two virtuals in Kew gardens.

The stop and smell the roses 1 by nobby.nobbs (GCHVBN) and

Kew Gardens Virtual Cache by Northern Trekker (GCA692)

Both of these claim that you have to look for a virtual cache.Up to here there is no problem at all.

When I reached the area, I found out that you have to pay 12 ukp to enter the Kew Gardens.

As I had not planned those extra expenses, I changed my target and left those caches for other people.

My objection is that at both descriptions, THERE IS NO WORD that you have to pay extra to get into the Kew gardens.Of course, a local geocacher may know that, but a foreigner as me does not know this.Do you expect from him to find this out at the entrance?

 

I request those descriptions to be updated with the information that it is charged 12 ukp for entrance.

What is your opinion fellow geocachers?

And what is the opinion of the approver of these caches? Is he aware of the situation?None has been interested all this time these are active?

And this arises after the owner of GCHVBN erased my Did not find log because I was mentioning the 12 ukp fee...what is the approvers opinion?

 

Thanks in advance.

YanniG

Edited November 27, 2007 by YanniG

[+scottpa100]

I did a virtual outside Blarney Castle in Ireland and there was an entry fee to get to the cache area. The thing is, especially with virtuals, is that they are grandfathered (no more can be created) and the idea of virtuals is that they were designed to show you something. Showing you something of interest may incur a cost... Maybe part of the reason why new caches can not be virtuals and not commercial. I say leave them as they are. The situation may not be ideal but Kew Gardens (not somewhere I've been) must be worth a visit.

[+YanniG]

I did a virtual outside Blarney Castle in Ireland and there was an entry fee to get to the cache area. The thing is, especially with virtuals, is that they are grandfathered (no more can be created) and the idea of virtuals is that they were designed to show you something. Showing you something of interest may incur a cost... Maybe part of the reason why new caches can not be virtuals and not commercial. I say leave them as they are. The situation may not be ideal but Kew Gardens (not somewhere I've been) must be worth a visit.

 

I agree with you my friend, but wouldn't it be better if someone knew it from the description that there is an extra cost?If you are at the spot with no money you are "caught" and you just do not enter.Nothing special.Just lost time.

But if you know this in advance, you plan better and you do not loose precious time...

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

Hello !

Recently I was in London and I tried some caches.Besides the ones that I had planned to look for, were the two virtuals in Kew gardens.

The stop and smell the roses 1 by nobby.nobbs (GCHVBN) and

Kew Gardens Virtual Cache by Northern Trekker (GCA692)

Both of these claim that you have to look for a virtual cache.Up to here there is no problem at all.

When I reached the area, I found out that you have to pay 12 ukp to enter the Kew Gardens.

As I had not planned those extra expenses, I changed my target and left those caches for other people.

My objection is that at both descriptions, THERE IS NO WORD that you have to pay extra to get into the Kew gardens.Of course, a local geocacher may know that, but a foreigner as me does not know this.Do you expect from him to find this out at the entrance?

 

I request those descriptions to be updated with the information that it is charged 12 ukp for entrance.

What is your opinion fellow geocachers?

And what is the opinion of the approver of these caches? Is he aware of the situation?None has been interested all this time these are active?

And this arises after the owner of GCHVBN erased my Did not find log because I was mentioning the 12 ukp fee...what is the approvers opinion?

 

Thanks in advance.

YanniG

I think I have to agree with YanniG, if there's a cost involved then it needs to be mentioned. I don't see the problem of not mentioning it

[+dino-irl]

I think I have to agree with YanniG, if there's a cost involved then it needs to be mentioned. I don't see the problem of not mentioning it

I would like to know if it was me but I can't help but feel that this would have been much more fruitful if it was done by email.

 

Coming to the forum strikes me that there is a bigger axe to grind than just an entrance fee (the log deletion maybe?)

[+kennamatic]

I live within a couple of miles of Kew Gardens and I've never done them because I refuse to pay the entrance fee. I have however just been given a membership card for free entrance so I might go pick them up now.

 

But I agree with you Yanni, it should have been mentioned and I thought, even going back to when they were placed, it was a rule that admission charges should be highlighted. Maybe just an unwritten rule though.

[+Pharisee]

............it was a rule that admission charges should be highlighted. Maybe just an unwritten rule though.

 

Probably just a 'guideline'

[nobby.nobbs]

Evening all.

 

Think I may have upset him when I deleted his log which was a DNF and was just a moan about having to pay. I then sent the following message to him to hopefully smooth things over:

 

 

"sorry you didn't like the idea of going in to kew gardens.

 

please don't be offended but i deleted your log as really it's not a dnf it's a did not look.

 

hope the rest of your searches in london are more to your liking "

 

I then got a reply from him. So I again replied :

 

"

I can understand that you might not want to pay, which is why I hoped you wouldn't take offence.

 

Plenty of other caches in London where no charge is made, just a shame to not have one in the gardens for those who don't mind. "

 

 

I can appreciate that some people might not want to pay to get in to the gardens. At the end of the day it's only a hobby and we can pick and choose which caches we attempt.

 

I really don't want to cause offence or upset anyone and only designed this virtual so that people who were already going around the gardens would be taken to places that they might otherwise miss. I go to the gardens on a regular basis and get surprised often by things that I haven't seen there before.

 

Hopefully people find the route around useful.

 

[Lactodorum]

Hello !

Recently I was in London and I tried some caches.Besides the ones that I had planned to look for, were the two virtuals in Kew gardens.

Youv've mentioned the key word "virtual". These are both old caches and were presumably reviewed before the Guidelines were updated to clarify the commercial ban.

 

In future, if you have a similar problem with a cache it might be better to contact the reviewers privately rather than point a finger in the public forum. I can guarantee you will get a response and we will certainly look into it.

 

I trust this thread doesn't degenerate.

[+Cache U Nutter]

What, do you mean it costs more than sixpence now to get in. What has the world come to?

[+milvus-milvus]

There's no charge to visit any of my caches - but if there were a fee to pay (and I'm sure they'd be worth it ) then I would find it a matter of politeness to point this out on the cache page, so that the prospective finder can make an informed decision before setting off for Ground Zero...

 

Baz.

[+scottpa100]

There are plenty of town caches where the only effective place for your car is a paid for parking space. I pay my 2 or 3 pounds for tte parking - I see it as an overheard for this geocaching malarky. I mean, we're prepared for the GPS, mapping software, petrol for car, bi-cycle lights, more walking gear, etc etc.

 

If you're going all out to get all caches - it ain't the cheapest hobby. If you're going to be more selective - then it becomes a whole lot more affordable. You makes ya choices.

[+kennamatic]

What, do you mean it costs more than sixpence now to get in. What has the world come to?

 

I can remember when it was a penny! And before anyone says it, no, I didn't go there by horse drawn omnibus!

[+YanniG]

@scottpa100

If you're going all out to get all caches - it ain't the cheapest hobby. If you're going to be more selective - then it becomes a whole lot more affordable. You makes ya choices.

 

I wanted to be more selective, but our friends keep part of the information a secret, so they mislead us when we plan our trips.

 

Hello !

Recently I was in London and I tried some caches.Besides the ones that I had planned to look for, were the two virtuals in Kew gardens.

Youv've mentioned the key word "virtual". These are both old caches and were presumably reviewed before the Guidelines were updated to clarify the commercial ban.

 

In future, if you have a similar problem with a cache it might be better to contact the reviewers privately rather than point a finger in the public forum. I can guarantee you will get a response and we will certainly look into it.

 

I trust this thread doesn't degenerate.

 

I agree that I had to contact the reviewer, but who is the reviewer of this old cache?

I could not find it mentioned anywhere at the description.

And my intention is to point out to the problem, not the concrete two caches.I have nothing against those people, they just want to have people visiting their caches.But they have to inform the visitors correctly.

I had part of the information and they keep secret a part of the information, which is the entrance fee.

And when I left a DID NOT FIND log with that part of the information, one of them erased this, just to keep misinforming future visitors.I do not see any other reason of erasing a did not find log...Or is it?

 

Even with this thread, I did not see the new information appear at the descriptions of these caches.

Do you think that I would leave not updated my cache under the Acropolis if the status at the area changed and a permission fee was needed? Then why do you leave your descriptions with part of the information kept secret?

 

YanniG

Edited November 28, 2007 by YanniG

[+Von-Horst]

Personally, I'm with Yanni on this one.

 

Firstly, I think it is wrong that the listings for the caches do not mention that Kew Gardens charges admission (not forgetting that such caches would not be allowed under the current rules). An admission price of £12 (!) is something I would definatelty like to know about before setting out for the day. I would be rather peeved to find out the hard way that I had to pay such a high charge just to log a couple of caches whilst passing through on a caching day (as opposed to going to the Gardens for the afternoon and logging a couple of caches whilst there).

 

Secondly, I think it was wrong to delete his log. If a cacher feels that a listing is not very good or is defincient in some way, he/she should be free to say so and give his/her reasons why, as long as he/she does so without swearing or being offensive. Such logs serve a valuable role in that they inform others that there may be issues to consider when deciding whether to attempt a cache or not. I have read the DNF posted on GCA692 (which has not been deleted) and cannot see why/how it could cause offense.

 

Thirdly, It is possible to argue all day about when a DNF is to be used ("did not find as I wasn't prepared to pay the exhorbitant entrance fee") and when a Write Note is more appropriate. To delete a log merely because you feel its use was incorrect feels wrong to me. The guy intended to look for the cache but (for whatever reason) did not find it.

 

That's my tuppence worth. I hope I haven't upset anyone, it was not my intention.

 

mike

 

edited for speeling and pre-coffee gramma

Edited November 28, 2007 by Von-Horst

[+sssss]

i have to agree that any fee's likely to be payable, be they entry or if the owner 'suggests' parking then a mention that a fee is payable is actually very sensible and not unreasonable.

 

as for a dnf, well it may be a did not look, but if a log is not rude, illegal or anything like that then should have been left after all he did try to get there and did not find.

 

i log all my dnf's now even if i cant get down a footpath to gz or the likes as its part of my caching history.

[+JeremyR]

Maybe I'm missing something here but wouldn't the obvious solution to this little pickle be to turn on the attribute?

[+FollowMeChaps]

I fully agree with the last few posts. Why don't the page owners just amend their pages to show a fee is payable and then the issue will go away? Simple really!

[+Bob Smith]

I fully agree with the last few posts. Why don't the page owners just amend their pages to show a fee is payable and then the issue will go away? Simple really!

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Deleting a log just because you don't like it is in my opinion just childish.

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

Maybe I'm missing something here but wouldn't the obvious solution to this little pickle be to turn on the attribute?

Good Point!

[+SUp3rFM & Cruella]

I also tend to agree to the last posts about posting the symbol... or make a reference on the cache description.

 

After checking out the logs from both caches, seems that very first geocachers who logged them referred the payment. For example:

 

GCHVBN was published on April 3,2004. The first log mentioning admission prices was in July 25, 2004.

 

GCA692 was published on October 31, 2002. The first log mentioning admission prices was in April 25, 2003.

 

There are more logs in both caches referring just that, the admission price. It would be advisable to edit the descriptions and say just that. It would avoid any kind of misunderstanding.

[+John Stead]

I would have thought it obvious that the entrance charge should be mentioned in the cache description together with the $ symbol.

As for deletion of the DNF log, I think that right but it might have been more tactful to ask the logger to change his log to "write a note" rather than simply delete and cause ill feeling.

[+rutson]

Fully agree with John and others. Whereas it may not be REQUIRED to state the admission charge, I feel it's only polite.

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

I agree the charge should be mentioned in the cache description. I also suspect the logic behind the log deletion was more to do with the content that the choice of log type.

 

I have picked up caches while on holiday and would be equally unimpressed if I spent an hour or two of my precious holiday time chasing caches only to find out there is a hefty fee to pay which would have made me discount the cache from my to do list if I had been informed of it initially. People will find out sooner or later that they have to pay the £12 so why not just tell them on the listing?

[+FantasticCat]

I think another reason to mention the entance fee would that it would then enable the cacher to decide if they wanted to visit the place for purposes other than finding the cache and leaving enough time in the day for them to get their money's worth- it would be a shame to turn up half an hour before closing, spend 20 minutes finding the cache and then only have 10 minutes to enjoy the place itself.

[+mongoose39uk]

Although it would be nice for an admission charge to be mentioned (ignoring the sneaky route of the Thames footpath?).

 

They have been there a while without a complaint GCHVBN 3/4/2004 and GCA692 10/31/2002.

Edited November 29, 2007 by mongoose39uk

[+Von-Horst]

Although it would be nice for an admission charge to be mentioned (ignoring the sneaky route of the Thames footpath?).

 

They have been there a while without a complaint GCHVBN 3/4/2004 and GCA692 10/31/2002.

 

Not entirely correct. Ignoring the issue of whether Yanni's was the first log deleted, other finders have commented;

 

"Shame you have to pay the extortionate garden entry fee"

 

"when I saw the entrance fee (11.75 GBP!!) I had to decide if it met my "cache value for money" criteria..."

 

"found thisone easily but I must pay some pounds to reach the location."

 

Also, how would a tourist, especially a foreign one, be aware of the existence of "the sneaky route of the Thames footpath?" - isn't that just the sort of thing that it would be helpful to include in the listing?

[+mongoose39uk]

Strikes me that those are comments rather than complaints.

 

I agree it would be nice to have the info before you go, however it us up to the owner of the listing and trying to embarrass them into changing the listing by taking it to the forum may have the opposite effect.

[+FollowMeChaps]

Post deleted - I'm going to rise above this after all!

Edited November 29, 2007 by FollowMeChaps

[+Von-Horst]

I too am going to withdraw from this one. Whilst I am happy to debate issues, I have no desire to argue semantics.

 

In addition, I find myself unable to comment further without, it appears, upsetting some of the senior members of the forum and it is not my intention to embarrass, anger or otherwise upset anybody.

[+jerryo]

I too am going to withdraw from this one. Whilst I am happy to debate issues, I have no desire to argue semantics.

 

In addition, I find myself unable to comment further without, it appears, upsetting some of the senior members of the forum and it is not my intention to embarrass, anger or otherwise upset anybody.

Sorry? Senior members? Who are they then? Or, possibly more accurately, who do they think they are? Aren't we all "equal" apart from the moderators with their lightning bolts, or is it that don't you want to upset the vocal people in case you get flamed? I can see the logic there, though.

 

Incidentally, does anyone else feel really sorry for nobby.nobbs about this? It's his cache and it's up to him whether he deletes any logs whether they are notes, DNFs Fs, or whatever. It'll blow over soon and maybe the cache page will be amended to accommodate, but here we are again opining and slagging off a cacher for a possible mistake that anyone could have made.

 

How many times have people found a cache with a really carp description, coords out of the solar system or what have you, and the setter won't alter it? I've had a few but I never took it to the forums.

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

How many times have people found a cache with a really carp description, coords out of the solar system or what have you, and the setter won't alter it? I've had a few but I never took it to the forums.

Very true, I could mention few!

[Lactodorum]

Sorry? Senior members? Who are they then? Or, possibly more accurately, who do they think they are? Aren't we all "equal"

Very true!

apart from the moderators with their lightning bolts,

I have access to more than lightning bolts

 

Incidentally, does anyone else feel really sorry for nobby.nobbs about this?

Yes, me.

[+mongoose39uk]

I feel sorry for Nobby, this would have been far better dealt with in private.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

The OP has a fair point and as a visitor he didn't necessarily have access to the reviewers. Given that the OP felt it appropriate to bring it to peoples attention here, why is it such a big deal to alter the cache page ... takes seconds after all?

[+2202]

Any entrance fee required to gain access to a cache must be noted in the cache description. A number of locations where an entrance fee is required do have back doors available to the locals.

Westonbirt Arbouretum springs to mind as does Blenheim Palace (get in free!!!) and both will save you oodles of money.

[+Mr'D]

I think raising this topic on this forum is appropriate. It brings the subject to others attention that when placing a cache it's a jolly good idea mentioning that an admission fee is required. I for one have been disappointed on a couple of occassions now, both at Kew and St.Paul's London, where I thought the admission fees far outweighed the value of loggng a cache or two.

 

Having said that...mentioning the name of a particular cache setter is not something I would have thought necessary to make ones point

 

Jon

[+mongoose39uk]

I think raising this topic on this forum is appropriate. It brings the subject to others attention that when placing a cache it's a jolly good idea mentioning that an admission fee is required. I for one have been disappointed on a couple of occassions now, both at Kew and St.Paul's London, where I thought the admission fees far outweighed the value of loggng a cache or two.

 

Having said that...mentioning the name of a particular cache setter is not something I would have thought necessary to make ones point

 

Jon

 

I have to agree, it is an appropriate place to discuss admission fees. It is the way it was done that to me is the issue. No need to name either the caches or the setters.

[nobby.nobbs]

Senior member? Me? senile maybe.

 

And feeling sorry for me. well thanks but honestly not needed. I'm always happy to listen to opinions and constructive criticism, which, in general, is what we always get on these forums.

 

I wont try to explain my reasoning behind the decision to delete the entry or argue the semantics of what was written or how it was approached. At the end of the day those were my decisions and I still stand by them as well as the emails I then sent to try and solve this matter.

 

I have taken onboard comments made and I will review how I have worded the cache page.

 

More importantly.

 

So that in future this can be dealt with more appropriately via emails and the reviewers.

 

If you need to discover which reviewer listed the cache all you need to do is scroll to the bottom of the cache page where it lists the reviewers name in the form of a link.

 

Alternatively when you go onto the forums you will see that in the "United Kingdom" section is led by the three reviewers each of whoms name is a direct link.

 

It was an easy mistake to make to assume that I was being arrogant and sarcastic but that would , I hope, been soon resolved once others opinions of myself were asked.

 

This is after all a hobby to enjoy, my membership of the GAGB committee is by no means going to my head making me think I am some senior statesman of this group. I do it as I have the time spare and I was asked and while I and anyone else who cares to comment thinks that I am doing some good I will carry on.

 

Thank goodness it's poets day tomorrow

[+Firth of Forth]

 

Thank goodness it's poets day tomorrow

 

No, it's St Andrew's Day. Time to get the tartan out.

[+mongoose39uk]

Mongers tries not to picture Nobby in Tartan