Caches in London archived by TPTB

[+NinjaCacher!]

First some of these (here too).

 

Then this reaction on >15 caches. Including London's most visited cache.

 

Anybody know what happened?

[Edgemaster]

I'd seen the johnytuna archives, but not the forced ones. I don't have a clue what's happened, bit disappointing to see the UK's most frequently visited cache disappear though -- especially since the cache page states (somewhat implicitly) that it is placed with permission.

 

I also note that the Ghandi Peace Cache was another of the forced archives.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Edgemaster

[+The Klever Boys]

That's a real shame...there's some good caches there that have now gone..and quite a few that I was looking to find shortly.

I guess these haven't gone without a reason, so also wonder what's happening to the caches there?

[+JeremyR]

Not that I'm expecting anything to come from this request but.... An explanation from Groundspeak would be rather nice* at this point

 

* Understatement

[+purple_pineapple]

About 25 of the best caches in london have gone... one of them being in my top 5 of all time. I sincerely hope that some of these can be adopted rather than archived, especially last delivery. Surely its important to keep the 'history' of these sorts of caches?

[+dino-irl]

An explanation from Groundspeak would be rather nice* at this point

 

Groundspeak is archiving this geocache due to a complaint from the local authorities.

Surely that's a good enough explanation for anyone? GC.com has obviously been contacted directly by someone official and they've responded to their wishes.

 

Oh and just because a cache is archived doesn't mean that it can't be reactivated

[+Happy Humphrey]

Groundspeak is archiving this geocache due to a complaint from the local authorities.

Surely that's a good enough explanation for anyone? GC.com has obviously been contacted directly by someone official and they've responded to their wishes.

 

Oh and just because a cache is archived doesn't mean that it can't be reactivated

I disagree: there are any number of types of complaint. Perhaps the cache can be reinstated after a minor adjustment. Perhaps caching is to be discouraged in that area. Perhaps there was a bomb scare. Perhaps London is the only city in the world where official Groundspeak caching isn't to be allowed (as inferred by the cache owner). Perhaps all UK city caches should be archived. Perhaps all urban caches should be checked to see if they're likely to cause the same problem. Perhaps the complaint wasn't justified.

 

We just don't know.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+The Hornet]

As the archiving was done directly by Groundspeak (Miss Jenn) and not referred to the local reviewers we have to assume that the "request" from the authorities required immediate action. I don't know what time it was done but I suspect it was yesterday evening sometime and it's unreasonable to expect the local team to be on duty at all hours . I'm sure when they're up and about we'll get some more information. As HH says, if there's a wider issue people need to know so as to take any proactive measures.

[+Simply Paul]

I've just sent the following email to MissJenn:

 

Re: Mass London archives.

 

Hi MissJenn. As an owner of a London cache I'm rather concerned about these; can you be any more specific about what the issue is/was so I can consider whether I should leave my own cache active?

 

Thanks very much in advance.

 

Paul

 

If there's any feedback, and it's ok to share here, I will.

[+purple_pineapple]

As the archiving was done directly by Groundspeak (Miss Jenn) and not referred to the local reviewers we have to assume that the "request" from the authorities required immediate action. I don't know what time it was done but I suspect it was yesterday evening sometime and it's unreasonable to expect the local team to be on duty at all hours . I'm sure when they're up and about we'll get some more information. As HH says, if there's a wider issue people need to know so as to take any proactive measures.

 

I'm in touch with jonnytuna, about the issues, and hopefully these caches won't be gone for good... I'll let you know how it goes...

[+Bear and Ragged]

jonnytuna posted a note for A Fleeting Glimpse (Traditional Cache)

 

Hi all,

I had a few of my caches closed down after investigation by the police following a bomb scare.

My feelings were that if these caches weren't permissable, then all of my caches weren't.

It's looking like people want to adopt my caches, so some of them may be coming back online with new owners.

Watch this space.

Jon

 

linky

 

But didn't we (cachers) do something to notify the police (with Deci's help?) not so long ago to try to lessen the risk of this?

[+Von-Horst]

 

But didn't we (cachers) do something to notify the police (with Deci's help?) not so long ago to try to lessen the risk of this?

 

Yes.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Presumably, with the Olympics coming to London in 2012 things will start to be tightened up, security wise, ready for the games..?

 

Is this another concern, that we (as cachers) should be taking on board.

 

If the caches above have been archived due to "Bomb Scare" issues, things will become even tighter closer to the games themselves.

 

Will we be allowed into London with a GPSr? [And that, I hope, is a tongue in cheek question!]

[+Crid]

Having done a bit of caching in Central London and also downtown Toronto, I think virtuals are better suited to places like this. They don't require you to look suspicious because many seem to point you to a plaque on a wall or something similar, where looking and jotting down an answer doesn't look dodgy.

 

What a shame Groundspeak decided to do away with them. But I guess that's old news.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Having done a bit of caching in Central London and also downtown Toronto, I think virtuals are better suited to places like this. They don't require you to look suspicious because many seem to point you to a plaque on a wall or something similar, where looking and jotting down an answer doesn't look dodgy.

 

What a shame Groundspeak decided to do away with them. But I guess that's old news.

 

Groundspeak haven't done away with them. They're now called Waymarks

Edited August 30, 2008 by Bear and Ragged

[+Crid]

Groundspeak haven't done away with them. They're now called Waymarks

Details, details.

 

Personally I don't use that site. If they tied it to gc.com a bit more (like earthcache) perhaps I might.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Crid

[+Bear and Ragged]

Groundspeak haven't done away with them. They're now called Waymarks

Details, details.

 

Personally I don't use that site. If they tied it to gc.com a bit more (like earthcache) perhaps I might.

 

"Geocaching takes you to places you may not otherwise visit"

"Shows you things you might not otherwise see"

 

The same can be said of Waymarks (If they are done correctly!)

 

IF the archiving of caches IS a security issue, Waymarks may be the way to go.

 

This (with words in the right ears) may be the incentive for Groundspeak to integrate the two sites, so that Finds on either count on the other. (Which seems to be most peoples bugbear about Waymarks.)

[+sssss]

 

This (with words in the right ears) may be the incentive for Groundspeak to integrate the two sites, so that Finds on either count on the other. (Which seems to be most peoples bugbear about Waymarks.)

 

what a good idea

[+JeremyR]

Groundspeak is archiving this geocache due to a complaint from the local authorities.

Surely that's a good enough explanation for anyone? GC.com has obviously been contacted directly by someone official and they've responded to their wishes.

 

Well no, I don't think it is really because whilst it's not even close to my caching area any more, I was under the impression that there was a reasonable rapport (thanks to the reviewers of the time) with the Met police in the more sensitive areas of London that allowed caching to continue under certain additional guidelines. Obviously if this has now changed, the cachers and owners need to know exactly what's going on, not just TPTB...

[+Happy Humphrey]

 

This (with words in the right ears) may be the incentive for Groundspeak to integrate the two sites, so that Finds on either count on the other. (Which seems to be most peoples bugbear about Waymarks.)

 

what a good idea

It's been in Jeremy's plan for quite a while now (Project "Phoenix", now scaled down rather). I'm not sure what the delay is.

[+Michael]

Groundspeak was contacted yesterday by a reputable source that the caches in question were causing a potential problem in central London. The caches were archived while Groundspeak is investigating

this matter. Groundspeak will decide how best to deal with this when we complete our investigation. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Michael

[+currykev]

This is a familiar tale for C.London.

Since I cleared my SW1 caches and some more a year or so ago I haven't had any further security issues.

Apart from being questioned by PC Plod some months ago as to my Sunday morning activities.

But I have 1 or 2 that might get scrutiny at some date.

But as happened last time, it seems GC.com have acted in a fast and furious manner, but the reasoning will be somewhat slower.

Edited August 31, 2008 by currykev

[+wigglesworth]

This is a great way to finally reduce the growing number of caches supported by the community.

If this continies I will very soon have completed all the London caches!

 

Perhaps we need to develop a better understanding with TPTB yo limit the number of times security staff are alerted by 'strange goings on'.

 

I wish I had an answer but debating approaches here may help to form a solution.

Peter

[+sTeamTraen]

 

This (with words in the right ears) may be the incentive for Groundspeak to integrate the two sites, so that Finds on either count on the other. (Which seems to be most peoples bugbear about Waymarks.)

It's been in Jeremy's plan for quite a while now (Project "Phoenix", now scaled down rather). I'm not sure what the delay is.

 

AFAIK there are no plans to merge the found counts from the two games. Apart from anything else it would make today's record of 315 or however many cache finds it is in 24 hours, look very modest. Caches are hidden and generally take some effort to find; waymarks are not and you can log many of them by taking a photo through your car window. So while it might seem cool to be able to boost your smiley count with a few waymarks, it would devalue a cache smiley in much the same way that <cricket reference alert> adding your runs scored to your wickets taken in a season would devalue your bowling average <end cricket reference alert>.

 

Back on-topic: Groundspeak archived exactly two caches in Central London. If cache owners then choose to archive theirs, that's entirely their decision. Having caches archived at the request of the authorities, especially in big cities, is a hazard of the game. And although one can try to establish agreements with the authorities, it's unlikely that every one of the thousands of Met officers got the mail, remembered it, and added it to their fairly extensive list of "reasons not to be suspicious".

[Edgemaster]

Groundspeak archived exactly two caches in Central London.

Three by my count - Location Location Location, Ghandi Peace Cache and Sidetracked - London St. Pancras International.

[+Learned Gerbil]

A fourth - British Library was also disabled by TPTB.

 

This looks like being the original problem cache.

[whitingiom]

Post deleted...I was having a mad moment

Edited August 31, 2008 by whitingiom

[+Cushie Butterfield]

Are we really going to give up another pastime to these morons? First it takes an hour to pass 25 yds from an airport door to a plane, now this. We are letting them win by being passive and compliant.

Sorry but I think the majority is being dictated to by the minority here. Please can someone have the guts to reinstate them?

A few caches removed is hardly likely to cause anybody to give up geocaching

I would rather take an hour to board a plane than be blown up in mid air.

Geocachers are hardly the majority, rather the minority when it comes to the population of London.

 

Imagine how you would feel, or what you would do if you were called out to a plastic box that could be a bomb to find out that it's full of tat and a notebook placed by some people playing games? I would be quite relieved but then I would move it if it saved somebody else having to deal with it again.

 

Imagine if a cache, placed with permission, was replaced with something more dangerous but nobody took any notice because it's only a cache? It could be easily done.

 

It would be fun to go caching in city centres, especially for tourists but I would rather be safe. If the police have removed them they have done so for our safety.

[+sTeamTraen]

Are we really going to give up another pastime to these morons? First it takes an hour to pass 25 yds from an airport door to a plane, now this. We are letting them win by being passive and compliant.

Sorry but I think the majority is being dictated to by the minority here. Please can someone have the guts to reinstate them?

 

On one level I agree with you - most "security" is in fact "security theatre" (a phrase invented by the admirable Bruce Schneier). And you don't have to compare our relatively benign governments with those in "1984" to realise that the "war on terror" will never end, because it's defined so widely.

 

But, all caches require permission. Usually permission is "assumed", but when the police tell you to remove something, you can pretty much assume that permission is denied. So on a pragmatic level, Groundspeak had to do what they did, and while I might not have reacted as Jonnytuna did, I certainly wouldn't criticise him for his decision.

[alistair_uk]

Michael, can I ask if the "reputable source" is MoJ, Home Office of Police?

[+Jacobite]

But, all caches require permission. Usually permission is "assumed", but when the police tell you to remove something, you can pretty much assume that permission is denied. So on a pragmatic level, Groundspeak had to do what they did, and while I might not have reacted as Jonnytuna did.

 

Totally agree, GSP has no choice but to archive them.

 

If GSP failed to act on these caches, there would soon be no caches in central London, as there would be a ban on all caches being placed there. And if that policy was to spread to other citys in the UK, it would just be a disaster for UK caching. I feel sorry that the cache setters have lost a few caches (that may even return), but if GSP weren't to act quickly in regards to these caches, the consequences could be far more dire for caching in the UK.

[+mongoose39uk]

But, all caches require permission. Usually permission is "assumed", but when the police tell you to remove something, you can pretty much assume that permission is denied. So on a pragmatic level, Groundspeak had to do what they did, and while I might not have reacted as Jonnytuna did.

 

Totally agree, GSP has no choice but to archive them.

 

If GSP failed to act on these caches, there would soon be no caches in central London, as there would be a ban on all caches being placed there. And if that policy was to spread to other citys in the UK, it would just be a disaster for UK caching. I feel sorry that the cache setters have lost a few caches (that may even return), but if GSP weren't to act quickly in regards to these caches, the consequences could be far more dire for caching in the UK.

 

Mongers checks his temperature, for once I agree with both Jacobite and sTeamTraen.

[+rutson]

I'm off to the quacks...

 

Need some pills....

 

agreeing with sTeamTraen, Jacobite AND Mongers.

 

*sings* they're coming to take me away haha

[+rutson]

[edit] /me gets his duck-call out and quacks "delete me please oh ducky one"

Edited September 1, 2008 by rutson

[+Jacobite]

We agree because we can all see how the potiential poo could hit the fan, and none of us want that.

 

Let GSP sort it out, and we'll see what comes out in the wash. (fingers crossed for a good result)

[+purple_pineapple]

We agree because we can all see how the potiential poo could hit the fan, and none of us want that.

 

Let GSP sort it out, and we'll see what comes out in the wash. (fingers crossed for a good result)

 

I don't know the background on the ones that GSP archived, but I'm still hoping to adopt some of the other caches, as it would be a crying shame to let the likes of Last Delivery disappear for ever!

 

I've e-mailed Deci and GracULUS to see what the situation is, so hopefully I'll hear something soon!

[+kewfriend]

Mongers checks his temperature, for once I agree with both Jacobite and sTeamTraen.

Yep - so do I: aaaaaargh

 

Actually all those caches up in that area were NOT particularly nice, clever or well located caches and we went to the locations and then didnt bother. It happens. Sometimes cache setters think they are being clever etc but they are mistaken. (and yes - I've made similar mistakes in the past)

 

As for the more general security issue, play by the GAGB rules and all will be well.

My own views on our current 'police surveillance state' are probably unprintable in a family friendly forum but then I'm an old fashioned 1960s libertarian who believes that freedom is inherently dangerous.

[+MissJenn]

Anybody know what happened?

I communicated in private and in detail with the cache owners involved before the posting those logs.

[+Simply Paul]

Anybody know what happened?

I communicated in private and in detail with the cache owners involved before the posting those logs.

I wouldn't want to tell you how to do your (unpaid? None of my business) job, but if I'd been archiving these caches I might have posted something like this (off the top of my head):

 

After private and detailed communications with the owner of this geocache, Groundspeak is archiving it due to a complaint from local authorities, stemming from the current security situation in London. Rather than show geocaching in a poor light it has been agreed to archive three caches in sensitive locations, this being one of them.

 

That would have limited speculation and any accusation of a big stick -so to speak- attitude from Groundspeak, and may even have given the owner who archived several other caches cause to pause and consider his position. Just my opinion, as a London cache owner myself.

 

Edited to fix a dodgy quote thingy

Edited September 2, 2008 by Simply Paul

[+mongoose39uk]

Anyone else bored with the WHINING yet?

[+Simply Paul]

Anyone else bored with the WHINING yet?

You whine as much as you like mate.

[Edgemaster]

Tbh, I think the given archival note was adequate.

[+Simply Paul]

We could have a vote? When Groundspeak goes public I'm going to buy at least one share so I can

[Dave from Glanton]

Michael, can I ask if the "reputable source" is MoJ, Home Office of Police?

 

Alastair, it's a while since you asked this direct question of Michael, and I can't see a reply from him in this thread. I'm just wondering if he's replied to you directly, and if you have anything from him that you can share here?

[+purple_pineapple]

while we're on the subject, can I ask if our esteemed and overworked reviewers have got an e-mail from me?! I hate nagging, but I'm rather keen to make sure some of the london caches can be kept!!!

 

/me grovels!

[+Jacobite]

while we're on the subject, can I ask if our esteemed and overworked reviewers have got an e-mail from me?! I hate nagging, but I'm rather keen to make sure some of the london caches can be kept!!!

 

/me grovels!

 

I also posed a question to a member of the UK reviewing team and received no response (even after a reminder). But what's more important is that GSP is dealing with the situation, and our questions will be answered in due course.

[Deceangi]

while we're on the subject, can I ask if our esteemed and overworked reviewers have got an e-mail from me?! I hate nagging, but I'm rather keen to make sure some of the london caches can be kept!!!

 

/me grovels!

 

Me ungroveling you the request from the other person involved is being actioned by someone with the power to do so hopefully things will move quickly forward

[+FunLovingGeocacher]

I'm off to that there London soon and I was looking for some good bookmarked lists.

Following the archieving, I best alot are out of date.

 

Can anyone recommend any book marks?

[+The Blorenges]

If you look in the "Multiple Pinned Topic" at the top of this Forum, you'll find The List of Bookmark Lists collected together by Birdman-of-Liskatraz. You'll see there are a few London Bookmarks there.

 

MrsB

[alistair_uk]

Michael, can I ask if the "reputable source" is MoJ, Home Office of Police?

 

Alastair, it's a while since you asked this direct question of Michael, and I can't see a reply from him in this thread. I'm just wondering if he's replied to you directly, and if you have anything from him that you can share here?

No reply I am afraid, but Michael does not know me and would have no reason to trust me more than anyone else I guess. As many will know this is the kind of this that really annoys me and I will be following it up to find out what has happened. That being said I doubt it will get the caches relisted.