Jump to content

Caches in Graveyards [Church or Stand alone]


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

 

Don't know! Perhaps permission has to be sought from a bishop +/or reviewer!

 

We (cachers collectively) seem to be creating some strange rules around these places.

 

As I understand it physical caches are a no-no in graveyards without proof of permission, but clues for multi's are OK and there's even a suggestion that clues should be got by standing outside and peering shiftily over the wall :huh:

 

Once you have the answer to a multi you may then go and find the physical cache itself, the physical cache could very easily be on private property but no written proof of permission is needed :) Unless the property is owned by the NT, FC or a woodland trust :huh:

 

No wonder grave yards have a certain aura about them ;)

Edited by uktim
Link to comment

Don't know! Perhaps permission has to be sought from a bishop +/or reviewer!

Just to walk round it? I think not. As long as you are respectful, no sane person would object to anyone looking round a cemetery, churchyard or similar.

 

I totally agree and think visiting churches and their environs should be encouraged. My previous post was in reference to the hiding of physical caches and was intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek!

Link to comment
My latest Church Micro involved walking 3m into the church grounds to get some numbers, no where near any graves but the moderator has told me he cannot publish because it involves a waypoint that is just over the wall surrounding the church, no physical cache just a waypoint. This misunderstanding has now been resolved to all parties satisfaction, as peeved as I was at the time I am glad someone was watching closely and I do appreciate the reviewers are volunteers which is maybe why we should be more careful with our hides.

I'm a little mystified by this comment. Are you saying that your cache was disallowed because a NON-PHYSICAL waypoint was in the churchyard? And are you saying that it was only published after you convinced the reviewer that the information could be obtained from OUTSIDE the graveyard?

 

That is not the interpretation I put on Deceangi's original statement (the statement I wholeheartedly endorsed).

 

Or are you saying that he allowed your cache when you explained that the waypoint inside the graveyard was NOT physical?

 

I believe (hope) AP meant your second 'theory' Mr H - cache allowed once it was explained it was a non-physical stage in the churchyard! I agree though that the point wasn't immediately obvious!

 

I wonder if this misunderstanding (which I assume was it it was) relates to the use of Additional Waypoints, and which of the multitude of options to use for various types of stages - but thats a whole different thread! sorry!

 

Can I clarify, I was a bit miffed off when I posted my original message so may not have been a coherent and structured one that came across. I believe the reviewer thought that I had a physical hide on church grounds. Once I explained that it was a waypoint to a clue he/she relented. I also explained the clue was only a few metres inside the churchyard. If it had been 25 metres inside the churchyard I don't know what the answer would have been. As I read it in the cold light of day, sensible clue locations would be allowed, physical hides would be scrutinised and owners permission required. I've set a couple of Church Micros and found dozens of them and they have all been "respectful" of the church and it's residents.

 

Hope that helps?

Link to comment

A bit of common sense by all really but hides in graveyards should be a big NO, it does't seem right somehow.

 

Sorry to waffle on but it needs to be said. I certainly will not be asking people to enter church grounds in the future, all clues will be visible from the outside!

 

Surely this is just a personal perspective. I have no issues with caches in graveyards. I would have no wish to be buried in a place which excluded everyday living folk and I wouldn't wish for any close friends or relatives to be buried in such a place.

 

If you don't like caches in graveyards don't do them but please don't foist your views onto others.

 

I'm not foisting my views on anyone, just participating in a forum. My views are valid as are anyones but thats all they are, my personal views.

 

Sorry if my reply has caused offence. Your statement that "hides in graveyards should be a big NO" seemed rather absolute to me. I think it's great to have caches that encourage people to visit graveyards and churches and that it's a real shame to discourage such hides.

 

Whilst I believe that as individuals we should have subtly different standards of behaviour in and around churches and graveyards, I'd hate to see them treated as off-limits or made subject to extra rules or restrictions. I understand the reasoning behind the decision by a hard pressed reviewer to require proof of permission for graveyard caches a large part of me says that if this is considered necessary for one type of location then maybe it's necessary for all caches. It seems very sad to apply different restrictions to church/graveyard caches, are they really so radically different from the many other areas that a cache could be hidden in?

 

Tim

 

Just a personal view, sorry if it came over differently, but that's all it was.

Link to comment

Just to clarify a couple of points when you submit a cache you have to tick a box stating that you have read and under stand the Guidelines.Which clearly states

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.
Once you have the answer to a multi you may then go and find the physical cache itself, the physical cache could very easily be on private property but no written proof of permission is needed huh.gif Unless the property is owned by the NT, FC or a woodland trust huh.gif

 

The location of the container comes under the "adequate permission", but where there is a Landowner Agreement the conditions stated in that Agreement override the presumption of "adequate permission". Which means the NT, FC or The Woodland Trust or any other location where there is a Landowner Agreement.

 

and as for

As I understand it physical caches are a no-no in graveyards without proof of permission, but clues for multi's are OK and there's even a suggestion that clues should be got by standing outside and peering shiftily over the wall unsure.gif

 

Proof of permission is required for PHYSICAL CONTAINERS Virtual Waypoints are not affected! And at No time has it ever been stated that clues should be obtained from standing outside standing outside and peering shiftily over the wall! As the person pointed out there was a misunderstanding over a virtual stage, it was not clear from reading the page that it was a virtual and not a physical stage. As such I erred on the side of caution.

 

Just a brief reminder of part of the reason why Physical Containers now require permission.

 

My anxiety about this is that, in looking for them, people will necessarily be rummaging around, even walking over graves. This is obviously a bit insensitive for those who have loved ones buried in the churchyard
Link to comment

So I take this new rule will be applied worldwide? (as I take it Dec has ok'd it with GS to be applied in the UK), or does it just apply to the UK?

 

The forum topic says it refers to the UK only. And before you say why should we be different in different parts of the world - that's why geocaching.com has local reviewers. People who are closer to the country in question and understand its culture and 'ways' more than TPTB do.

 

Another example of the more local rules that affect the UK and not being applied else where in the world, is where we are not allowed to hide caches in dry walls.

Link to comment

So I take this new rule will be applied worldwide? (as I take it Dec has ok'd it with GS to be applied in the UK), or does it just apply to the UK?

 

The forum topic says it refers to the UK only. And before you say why should we be different in different parts of the world - that's why geocaching.com has local reviewers. People who are closer to the country in question and understand its culture and 'ways' more than TPTB do.

 

Another example of the more local rules that affect the UK and not being applied else where in the world, is where we are not allowed to hide caches in dry walls.

 

Why on earth would anyone assume that the British are more over-sensitive than other nations about graveyards?

 

Some private landowners will be offended by caches on their property so why don't we go the whole hog and have a local rule that all physical caches require proof of permission?

 

Why get into local rules when we could have a single common sense approach for all caches worldwide?

Link to comment

So I take this new rule will be applied worldwide? (as I take it Dec has ok'd it with GS to be applied in the UK), or does it just apply to the UK?

 

The forum topic says it refers to the UK only. And before you say why should we be different in different parts of the world - that's why geocaching.com has local reviewers. People who are closer to the country in question and understand its culture and 'ways' more than TPTB do.

 

Another example of the more local rules that affect the UK and not being applied else where in the world, is where we are not allowed to hide caches in dry walls.

 

 

I had a discussion with Michael LaPaglia some months ago about the DSW issue.

 

He instructed me that there were no such things as UK specific guidelines.

 

That such issues were already embedded within the general gc.com guidelines for placing caches.

 

That being so this guideline cannot be UK specific, it must be somewhere subsumed within a gc.com guideline.

 

That would be that ALL caches have to be placed with the landowners' permission.

 

Another reason that Deceangi is now struggling on his own :D:D

Link to comment

Why get into local rules when we could have a single common sense approach for all caches worldwide?

 

Groundspeak's rules are mostly about what Groundspeak wants, or doesn't, to have listed on their site. Some of these affect the physical placement, some don't.

 

Authorities and landowners in some parts of the world impose their own restrictions which tend to be mostly about the physical placement of the cache. They don't care if the cache is listed at geocaching.com or another listing site. (Groundspeak probably fields a lot of problems caused by caches which are not listed on their site. Do you have Terracaching's office phone number?)

 

To have worldwide standards, they would have to be the lowest-common denominator. A couple of years ago, following some hysterical press reporting of caching in cemeteries, South Carolina very nearly banned any form of GPS-based recreational activity in its "historic sites" (which cover cemeteries, but also a substantial percentage of the state, eg most of the downtown area of the state capital). If that had to become a worldwide rule, it would prevent physical and virtual stages being accepted in huge chunks of the world (and probably lead to anti-American comments from certain quarters).

 

Incidentally, some state and federal land managers in the US do ban geocaching, including virtual stages. Quite how constitutional that is, is open to question, but bureaucrats don't always think in those terms.

Link to comment

So I take this new rule will be applied worldwide? (as I take it Dec has ok'd it with GS to be applied in the UK), or does it just apply to the UK?

 

The forum topic says it refers to the UK only. And before you say why should we be different in different parts of the world - that's why geocaching.com has local reviewers. People who are closer to the country in question and understand its culture and 'ways' more than TPTB do.

 

Another example of the more local rules that affect the UK and not being applied else where in the world, is where we are not allowed to hide caches in dry walls.

 

The first thing I read was the forum topic, so I'm aware that it says "A change of reviewing policy in the UK", and I don't require a pre-emptive response to a question I never asked.

 

The reason I ask if it will be applied worldwide is, that as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong), all cachers read the same set of guidelines and this new rule change would not be in there. Cachers who are unaware of the rule change (all those who don't visit the forums) may have their new caches delayed as a result of the rule change.

I think most of the western world have the same values/sensitivities when it comes to graveyards as we do in the UK, so I do think it would apply to their "culture and ways".

Link to comment

IMO this is already covered in the guidelines under the "assumed permission" section. However, it seems that Dave can no longer rely on many people telling him the truth and has had to deal with complaints from one or more Churches. That's kind of sad really that people treat him and these areas with so little respect :rolleyes:

 

I've seen a few caches in graveyards that are totally inappropriate and others that are extremely well thought out and respectful. I wonder which ones have permission?

Link to comment

Local reviewers have always had the discretion to refuse to list caches on the Geocaching.com listing service when they are aware of a situation not necessarily covered by the general guidelines. The guidelines themselves state:

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.

All Deceangi is doing here is reinforcing the worldwide requirement for every single cache that adequate permission has been obtained for the cache. In this case he is requiring evidence that the person or persons responsible for the cemetery have given that permission.

 

As an ex-reviewer myself I know there are circumstances where assumed permission is not adequate and that some landowners have requirements that certain procedures must be followed before permission is given. This is nothing new and the sky hasn't collapsed since such restrictions have been in place. That is one reason why local reviewers, who know local circumstances, are "employed" by Groundspeak.

Link to comment

Local reviewers have always had the discretion to refuse to list caches on the Geocaching.com listing service when they are aware of a situation not necessarily covered by the general guidelines. The guidelines themselves state:

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.

All Deceangi is doing here is reinforcing the worldwide requirement for every single cache that adequate permission has been obtained for the cache. In this case he is requiring evidence that the person or persons responsible for the cemetery have given that permission.

 

As an ex-reviewer myself I know there are circumstances where assumed permission is not adequate and that some landowners have requirements that certain procedures must be followed before permission is given. This is nothing new and the sky hasn't collapsed since such restrictions have been in place. That is one reason why local reviewers, who know local circumstances, are "employed" by Groundspeak.

Link to comment

I think most of the western world have the same values/sensitivities when it comes to graveyards as we do in the UK, so I do think it would apply to their "culture and ways".

 

I think that's a very big assumption indeed.

 

In some European countries, you lease a burial plot from the city for 50 years. At the end of that time they come along with a big bulldozer, churn the earth over, and start again. In most theologies, your immortal soul has long since been saved (or not :rolleyes:) so it "doesn't matter". But I can't imagine this going down very well in the UK.

 

Also, you'd have to define what you mean by "graveyard". Depending on your point of view it could cover a 2,500 year old necropolis, or the beautifully landscaped grounds of an American military cemetery (the cache is 300 metres from the nearest grave), or an abandoned Jewish cemetery which served a village that disappeared 100 years ago.

Link to comment

I think most of the western world have the same values/sensitivities when it comes to graveyards as we do in the UK, so I do think it would apply to their "culture and ways".

 

I think that's a very big assumption indeed.

 

In some European countries, you lease a burial plot from the city for 50 years. At the end of that time they come along with a big bulldozer, churn the earth over, and start again. In most theologies, your immortal soul has long since been saved (or not <_<) so it "doesn't matter". But I can't imagine this going down very well in the UK.

 

Also, you'd have to define what you mean by "graveyard". Depending on your point of view it could cover a 2,500 year old necropolis, or the beautifully landscaped grounds of an American military cemetery (the cache is 300 metres from the nearest grave), or an abandoned Jewish cemetery which served a village that disappeared 100 years ago.

 

OK, I'll make it easy for you.

The vast majority of burial places, worldwide, are respected by their individual cultures. (but obviously not by some European city councils, as you have stated).

If we were to debated each individual culture, this subject would quickly become bogged down, and no consensus would be reached.

As to your last paragraph, I beleive Dec has already outlined the rules changes (UK only) he has implemented in previous posts on this thread.

I would hope that regional reviewers , will look at this subject and see if changes need to be made in their respective countries.

Link to comment

I would hope that regional reviewers , will look at this subject and see if changes need to be made in their respective countries.

 

Reviewers are always checking that their local application of the Groundspeak guidelines is appropriate for their area. But we don't read every post in every forum to see if something has been changed in another country. If you think that the worldwide guidelines should be updated, you can write to contact@Groundspeak.com. If Groundspeak feels that your point is sufficiently important that all reviewers should reconsider their position on cemetery caches, they will let us know.

Link to comment

I would hope that regional reviewers , will look at this subject and see if changes need to be made in their respective countries.

 

Reviewers are always checking that their local application of the Groundspeak guidelines is appropriate for their area. But we don't read every post in every forum to see if something has been changed in another country. If you think that the worldwide guidelines should be updated, you can write to contact@Groundspeak.com. If Groundspeak feels that your point is sufficiently important that all reviewers should reconsider their position on cemetery caches, they will let us know.

 

I refer to my reply on another forum :sad::sad:

Link to comment

What about graveyards that are no longer graveyards i.e. with the headstones parked around the perimeter and houses built in the middle :D,

 

What about parks that used to be graveyards :D,

 

What about cretmetoria, :)

 

What about where peoples ashes are scattered :),

 

What about unconsecrated graveyards :),

 

 

:sad::huh::huh::sad:

Link to comment

Having worked in cemetaries and churchyards as a gardener I know how sensitive some people can be, remember that some people take religion, concecrated ground, and respecting of the dead very seriously, and while I'm sure nobody visiting graves of relatives would mind other members of the public visiting a graveyard we have to ensure that our cache hides are not going to cause geocachers to act in a way that might upset anyone.

 

I've found physical caches in graveyards and churchyards before, the only time I felt uncomfortable was when people were visiting graves nearby and when I had to take dates from random graves, I seem to feel less comfortable doing this in cemetaries that are still visited by mourners. I think Deci's approach to physical caches in graveyards is the right one.

 

A couple of things to think about regarding virtual waypoints..

 

1) The way most modern graveyards are set out there should be no need to walk across graves to find a particular one as they are all in rows, however if a cacher is following an arrow and has to walk 60' to the end of one row and back again to get to a waypoint 10' away do you think they would?

 

2) If you feel uncomfortable using graves as clues for your multi (as I would) then there ARE other ways of attaining numbers from a churchyard other than dates on graves!! A date on a lytch gate or above a doorway, the number of hinges on a church door, how many benches around a certain area? Imagination can go a long way. :sad:

Link to comment

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...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...