+NinjaCacher! Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 First some of these (here too). Then this reaction on >15 caches. Including London's most visited cache. Anybody know what happened? Quote Link to comment
Edgemaster Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+The Klever Boys Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment
+JeremyR Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Not that I'm expecting anything to come from this request but.... An explanation from Groundspeak would be rather nice* at this point * Understatement Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment
+dino-irl Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+The Hornet Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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... Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment
+Von-Horst Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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!] Quote Link to comment
+Crid Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+Crid Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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.) Quote Link to comment
+sssss Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment
+JeremyR Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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... Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+Michael Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+wigglesworth Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 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". Quote Link to comment
Edgemaster Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Groundspeak archived exactly two caches in Central London. Three by my count - Location Location Location, Ghandi Peace Cache and Sidetracked - London St. Pancras International. Quote Link to comment
+Learned Gerbil Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 A fourth - British Library was also disabled by TPTB. This looks like being the original problem cache. Quote Link to comment
whitingiom Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 (edited) Post deleted...I was having a mad moment Edited August 31, 2008 by whitingiom Quote Link to comment
+Cushie Butterfield Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
alistair_uk Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Michael, can I ask if the "reputable source" is MoJ, Home Office of Police? Quote Link to comment
+Jacobite Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I'm off to the quacks... Need some pills.... agreeing with sTeamTraen, Jacobite AND Mongers. *sings* they're coming to take me away haha Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 (edited) [edit] /me gets his duck-call out and quacks "delete me please oh ducky one" Edited September 1, 2008 by rutson Quote Link to comment
+Jacobite Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 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) Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment
+kewfriend Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Anybody know what happened? I communicated in private and in detail with the cache owners involved before the posting those logs. Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Anyone else bored with the WHINING yet? Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Anyone else bored with the WHINING yet?You whine as much as you like mate. Quote Link to comment
Edgemaster Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Tbh, I think the given archival note was adequate. Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 We could have a vote? When Groundspeak goes public I'm going to buy at least one share so I can Quote Link to comment
Dave from Glanton Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment
+Jacobite Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment
+FunLovingGeocacher Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment
alistair_uk Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.