Jump to content

Greenwich Park, London. Caches archived.


Graculus
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

A few days ago I received a communication from the authorities in Greenwich Park in which they said that they did not want geocaching activity in the park. Specifically they said, "our Landscaping Team regularly scavenge the park and the placing of these boxes will be an increased security risk".

 

I therefore asked the owners of the caches in the park to archive them and remove the containers. This they have done - and thank you for that prompt response to my request.

 

I have left the 'virtual' cache as there is no physical aspect to it, but if the authorities object to it I will deal with it as required.

 

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer

UK Geocaching Information & Resources site

Link to comment

I truly fail to understand the attitude of the Royal Parks management in their refusal to allow any geocaching within the park. What is wrong with allowing an innocent hooby that encourages people to visit a truly beautiful park that they might not otherwise visit.

Oh well I suppose it wont be long before the caches in all the Royal Parks have to be archived.

Link to comment

Very sad to hear this. I used to live in London and visiting Greenwich Park was always a delight. Then I moved away and hadn't been to it for 13 years - until I returned to London last November and made sure that I came back - no least because it had the added attraction of now having caches within it! The park was just as wonderful as I remembered, and even more so because it had caches to be found inside it! How will I feel next time I am down in London though? I will no doubt look elsewhere for my Sunday walk because even though I love Greenwich Park, there are other spots I like almost as much but which also have active caches within them.....

Link to comment

Please can you explain to me why on earth this site is agreeing and going along with this unreasonable request?

 

The caches in the Park do no one any harm.

 

Why on earth has some unnamed person decided that they are an "increased security risk" at this random point?

 

If this site continued to list the caches then there is little the "authorities" can do about it. (Maybe remove them - but I would happily replace mine.)

 

This is another example in the UK of post 9-11 madness. Where the bonkers threat of "security" is used to control and undermine the live and freedoms of normal people.

 

This site should say a polite but firm 'no' to the "authorities" and keep the caches on line.

 

It is our taxes that pay for the upkeep of the park.

 

Please can this site resist this very silly and random demand?

 

ThePirateKing.

 

<Edited by Moderator to remove inappropriate language>

Edited by ThePirateKing
Link to comment

Coincidentally I saw this yesterday in the Standard, regarding the park being used for the Olympics. Don't know if there's any connection.

 

Link

 

It seems a shame that when placed, the caches had permission (I'm guessing) from thew rangers - why has their attitude changed?

 

Will there be any london ones left.......

 

Should virtuals be re-instated in cities like London?

Link to comment

I would like to add my comments here as it was a request, made by myself, for permission to hide caches in Greenwich Park that has resulted in the caches being archived.

 

Those of you that like to do research will note that I "owned" one of the caches (Prime Meridian Cache) that I archived as requested. I adopted this a few years ago when the original owner was unable to maintain it so do not know if permission was granted - or not. As to whether other cache owners received appropriate permission for their caches is unknown and only they can answer that.

 

Without the salutations, the email read:

 

"Thank you for your e-mail. Unfortunately due to our change of computer system we were unable to access the Greenwich Mailbox system until today.

 

 

With reference to your proposal, our Landscaping Team regularly scavenge the park and the placing of these boxes will be an increased security risk. So it is on this basis that I cannot allow this activity in Greenwich Park."

 

As the statement was unambiguous, I felt obliged to make the UK reviewers aware of this - hence this topic.

 

The request was based on the GAGB standard letter so the park was totally aware of what Geocaching is about.

Link to comment

 

With reference to your proposal, our Landscaping Team regularly scavenge the park and the placing of these boxes will be an increased security risk. So it is on this basis that I cannot allow this activity in Greenwich Park."

 

As the statement was unambiguous, I felt obliged to make the UK reviewers aware of this - hence this topic.

 

The request was based on the GAGB standard letter so the park was totally aware of what Geocaching is about.

 

Or you could have just kept schtum. They might have been unwilling or unable to grant permission but turn a blind eye to the caches already in place. No need to trash everyone else's caches (as I see it).

 

No criticism of the reviewers here, once they get such email what choice do they have but to act.

 

Philip

Link to comment

 

With reference to your proposal, our Landscaping Team regularly scavenge the park and the placing of these boxes will be an increased security risk. So it is on this basis that I cannot allow this activity in Greenwich Park."

 

As the statement was unambiguous, I felt obliged to make the UK reviewers aware of this - hence this topic.

 

The request was based on the GAGB standard letter so the park was totally aware of what Geocaching is about.

 

Or you could have just kept schtum. They might have been unwilling or unable to grant permission but turn a blind eye to the caches already in place. No need to trash everyone else's caches (as I see it).

 

No criticism of the reviewers here, once they get such email what choice do they have but to act.

 

Philip

Sounds like a starting point for negotiation. The "increased security risk" part is rather ambiguous: as we've seen elsewhere in the city, London appears to be on a much higher alert than a few weeks ago, but this seems to infer that the risk is a new one involving the Landscaping Team. Perhaps.

Hopefully, ThePirateKing will be able to confirm what the actual problem is. It could be that further explanation is required: there's a precedent for officials refusing a cache request as they basically don't read the letter and don't want to know. It looks like permission for multiple caches was requested this time ("the placing of these boxes will be an increased security risk.") but perhaps a single cache would have been allowed.

Link to comment

Please can you explain to me why on earth this site is agreeing and going along with this unreasonable request?

 

The caches in the Park do no one any harm.

 

Why on earth has some unnamed person decided that they are an "increased security risk" at this random point?

 

If this site continued to list the caches then there is little the "authorities" can do about it. (Maybe remove them - but I would happily replace mine.)

 

This is another example in the UK of post 9-11 madness. Where the bonkers threat of "security" is used to control and undermine the live and freedoms of normal people.

 

This site should say a polite but firm 'no' to the "authorities" and keep the caches on line.

 

It is our taxes that pay for the upkeep of the park.

 

Please can this site resist this very silly and random demand?

 

ThePirateKing.

 

<Edited by Moderator to remove inappropriate language>

  • It's not an unreasonable request. It's their land, and if they don't want caches on it, it's up to them.
  • The moderators have to comply with any request made. What's the point of fighting it? All you'll do is make Geocachers look immature and unreasonable and it acheives nothing.
  • Yes, the whole "security" thing is bonkers and I disagree wholeheartedly with that excuse for removing them. But once again - it's their land, and they can do what they want with it. We don't have the right to do what we want there, without permission.

This looks like throwing toys out the pram to me. All caches are supposed to be placed with permission, and the landowner is free to remove that permission at any time. Yes, it's a shame, but come on - London is full of caches. Why get so angry about this?

 

Lee

Link to comment

 

It is our taxes that pay for the upkeep of the park.

 

<Edited by Moderator to remove inappropriate language>

 

This is the end quote on the Royal Parks site

<The Royal Parks is an executive agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)>

so basically as the Pirate King said they belong to the country and the Royal Parks Agency simply maintain and manage them for us (it is NOT their land)and paid for by US the taxpayer of this wonderful free(???) country.

I will be very interested to hear what PirateKing finds out from the Friends of Greenwich Park.

 

It is more than likely some jumped up jobsworth who has attained a minor position of authority and has decided to stamp his feet and be a pain to hundreds, nay thousands, of tax payers (his wages payers) God alone help us if this meglomaniac ever attained a position of real power.

Link to comment

Please can you explain to me why on earth this site is agreeing and going along with this unreasonable request?

 

The caches in the Park do no one any harm.

 

Why on earth has some unnamed person decided that they are an "increased security risk" at this random point?

 

If this site continued to list the caches then there is little the "authorities" can do about it. (Maybe remove them - but I would happily replace mine.)

 

This is another example in the UK of post 9-11 madness. Where the bonkers threat of "security" is used to control and undermine the live and freedoms of normal people.

 

This site should say a polite but firm 'no' to the "authorities" and keep the caches on line.

 

It is our taxes that pay for the upkeep of the park.

 

Please can this site resist this very silly and random demand?

 

ThePirateKing.

 

<Edited by Moderator to remove inappropriate language>

  • It's not an unreasonable request. It's their land, and if they don't want caches on it, it's up to them.
  • The moderators have to comply with any request made. What's the point of fighting it? All you'll do is make Geocachers look immature and unreasonable and it acheives nothing.
  • Yes, the whole "security" thing is bonkers and I disagree wholeheartedly with that excuse for removing them. But once again - it's their land, and they can do what they want with it. We don't have the right to do what we want there, without permission.

This looks like throwing toys out the pram to me. All caches are supposed to be placed with permission, and the landowner is free to remove that permission at any time. Yes, it's a shame, but come on - London is full of caches. Why get so angry about this?

 

Lee

 

Agree completely and suggest ThePirateKing should delete this unreasonable and inappropriate log. Cache listings are not the right venue to be ranting about this.

 

Of course it is deeply disappointing if these caches are going to disappear and whilst we have to respect their decision it is perfectly reasonable to wish discuss it further with them. I very much doubt however, based upon ThePirateKing's comments, that him raising it with Friends of Greenwich Park will do any good and will probably just serve to harm the image of geocachers in general.

 

My understanding is that the land is owned by the Crown but it doesn't really matter who owns it, tax payers or not, it doesn't give us a right to place caches.

Link to comment

Greenwich Park is a place I used to know well long before caching ever came into existence. I think it's a great shame that caches are banned there now, as it's a beautiful place and well worth visiting, but I don't think we're going to change anybody's mind over this. I see no harm in polite emails to those who manage it, but I'd be very surprised if they brought about any change.

 

No blame should be attached to the reviewers here - if it's brought to their attention that a land owner or manager has specifically stated that they don't want caches on their land then they have no choice but to archive any that are there. Gc.com's guidelines specifically state that a cache should have permission, and in a situation like this those caches clearly didn't have.

Link to comment

Whilst I appreciate you must be pretty miffed (to say the least), there's no sense in fingerpointing now! Nothing positive will come from that.

 

If the park is searched in the way they imply, it was only a matter of time before a cache was found by staff anyway.

 

I would hope there may be a way forward from here, perhaps the cache setters concerned could garner some help from GAGB and perhaps Goldpot to draw up plans for another approach.

 

I hope there's a positive outcome for us all!

 

 

Edit to add: This was in response tro a previous post which has now been removed.

Edited by Dorsetgal & GeoDog
Link to comment

I see no harm in polite emails to those who manage it, but I'd be very surprised if they brought about any change.

It sounds like Bill is in possession of relevant information which we don't know about, so it could be worth checking with him before contacting the Park supervisors direct.

 

Judging from what little I know (which is entirely gleaned from this thread), it would be worth negotiating: but Bill seems to be saying that there are reasons that this is likely to be a waste of effort.

 

I agree that the reviewers had no option but to disable all caches in the park once they were told that geocaching is to be discouraged in the area, but often the initial "no caching" decision can be reversed once further discussion takes place. But perhaps not in this case, from what Bill says.

 

If all fails, as there are several hundred Groundspeak "virtuals" in the London area it might be worth concentrating on those rather than the troublesome physical caches. There are quite a lot in Greenwich already, but I'm sure there's room for more.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

Has anybody pointed out to the Greenwich Park Authorities that caches have been visited in the park for many years by hundreds of people (655 finds on GC18FF since 2001!), and though probably placed without specific permission, never caused any trouble in the park?

 

Also if their "Landscaping Team regularly scavenge the park", they would have already found the existing caches, wouldn't they?

 

As I understand, Master Mariner made a request "based on the GAGB standard letter" for placing new caches. They also state that "placing of these boxes will be an increased security risk". Therefore I wonder if it has been made clear enough to them that "this activity" has been done in the park for seven years without ever causing any trouble?

 

Or are they already increasing security for 2012 when Greenwich Park MIGHT be used as an Olympic site (which is not sure yet)? Of course during (and just before) the games there might be additional restrictions on caching anywhere in London, but I do think it's a bit too early for that...

Edited by luzian
Link to comment

As I understand the sequence, Master Mariner contacted the group who manage Greenwich Park about placing a cache or caches there (the responsible thing to do, even if it's not always done) and when they said No! he contacted TPTB (the responsible thing to do even though there was an unfortunate outcome) who decided that meant the existing caches must be removed (unclear as to whether the Greenwich Park authorities were aware of them or not -probably not- but still the responsible thing to do) and cachers collected up the old caches (the responsible thing to do) - I highlighted one that was still live (the responsible thing to do?) and the placer is less than impressed that this series of responsible things done responsibly has triggered an apparent ban on physical caches in that park. Well, I sympathise. I don't imagine their cache was doing any harm or causing any problems at all. However, regardless of who owns the land (us, as tax payers, the Queen as monarch, a bloke called Clifford due to a terrible admin error in 1978) the park is managed by a group who have the authority (tbc) to say what can, and can't be left there. I don't own 'my' front garden, but I am responsible for it, and would ask for any cache placed there without my permission to be removed. (This is not a suggestion or challenge!)

 

I think it's a great shame the park is down to one virtual. It's a cracking place with lots of areas you'd be unlikely to explore without a cache there to seek out. I hope an appeal and further explanation of caching's aims and benefits to the Greenwich people gets a limited number of caches back into the park, in locations jointly agreed upon as being suitable and monitorable. It is for situations like this that I think virtuals are still a good idea, but that boat has sailed long ago...

Link to comment

Oh well I suppose it wont be long before the caches in all the Royal Parks have to be archived.

Well hopefully the caches in the Royal Park of Holyrood (Edinburgh) will all stay active. I have built up a good relationship with the rangers of the park. Which just so happens came about the exact same way as what Master Mariner done.

 

 

With reference to your proposal, our Landscaping Team regularly scavenge the park and the placing of these boxes will be an increased security risk. So it is on this basis that I cannot allow this activity in Greenwich Park."

 

As the statement was unambiguous, I felt obliged to make the UK reviewers aware of this - hence this topic.

 

The request was based on the GAGB standard letter so the park was totally aware of what Geocaching is about.

 

Or you could have just kept schtum. They might have been unwilling or unable to grant permission but turn a blind eye to the caches already in place. No need to trash everyone else's caches (as I see it).

 

No criticism of the reviewers here, once they get such email what choice do they have but to act.

 

Philip

I can't believe that you are recommending this!! :rolleyes: To keep schtum leads to incidents like this. That cache was only metres away from a high level security area, and I believe that if I didn't have my daughter with me, the initial reaction of security may have been a lot different. As it was even with a child in tow, all of my escape routes had been covered by other security officers.

 

The rules for getting permission are there for very good reasons. To suggest that you should keep quiet about getting permission brings any caches that you own into question!

 

Will posters to this thread please note that an earlier post by Pirate King has been removed. It contained a personal attack on another geocacher's approach to geocache permissions and the tone of the post was not in line with the ethos of Geocaching.

 

mandarin

Looking at Pirate Kings posts, comments by others and the fact that his posts have been edited and deleted on here for language and personal attacks, it worries me that he has self appointed himself to be the speaker for our pastime with the park authorities.

 

Can I respectfully ask that anything you wish to put forward on our behalf that you run it by GAGB or the reviewing team first please? Otherwise we run the risk of never being able to place caches on their property or anyone else's that they have influence with.

Link to comment

Very sadly it seems that an awful lot more Greenwich caches have been archived now ... terrible shame.

 

I, like I am sure many others have enjoyed hours of fun seeking Master Mariners caches in Greenwich, and I am sorry to see them go. :laughing:

Yes, that is a shame. M/Mariner was very active in helping to get my Cutty Sark virtual cache unarchived last year. It gets logged on a very regular basis by cachers from all round the world, showing just how popular the caches in the Greenwich area have been.

 

a.

Link to comment

Very sadly it seems that an awful lot more Greenwich caches have been archived now ... terrible shame.

 

I, like I am sure many others have enjoyed hours of fun seeking Master Mariners caches in Greenwich, and I am sorry to see them go. :laughing:

 

Yes, agreed, a shame to see so many caches gone :laughing:

Link to comment

In this day and age, banging out email requests left right and centre is unproductive. The authorities of any available space need to chat with individual responsible geocachers and assess in the light of personal encounters with geocachers. They may still say no, but they will no longer be invited to make off the cuff and instant decisions.

 

Be savvy - and plan your locations and requests subtly.

Link to comment

As the cacher responsible for setting 2 of the most recent Greenwich Park cache's (Cache Ahoy and Greenwich Herbs), I feel I should add my penny's worth of comment...

 

I too will always try and seek permission for a cache if I think it's necessary(and out of courtesy even when i don't deem it necessary!), and in the case of these 2 I did write a hard copy letter and have sent 2 emails to the park authorities to try and gain permission. As the reviewing team had the park marked as "no permission necessary", having had no response to my letters(no surprise), and seeing cache's already present in the park anyway, I went ahead, responsibly (I think!) in 2 park boundary locations. I am also a "friend of Greenwich Park" and have been for 10 years.

 

It appears that Master Mariner was at least a little more successful than I in getting a response, albeit a negative one, when applying for a new cache in the park. First point to make - I have absolutely no issue with Master Mariner then notifying the cache reviewers that there was an issue with Greenwich park cache's. When I was notified by Graculus that the park authorities didn't want cache's in the park, I archived them straight away, and removed the physical boxes within a few days. The responsible thing to do, and following the guidelines of geocaching.

 

So - permission or no permission ? - I think cache setters like myself will often try (and often fail!) to get permission as it seems geocaching is a long way off some people's radar ! so PERSONALLY I see no harm in respectfully placing cache's in areas that MAY not need permission, such as Greenwich Park. However, some geocachers take great pride in gaining permission, and see this as part of the cache setting challenge. Who is right ? - to my mind both of us, it's just interpretation of where permission is and isn't necessary - and giving it a go, again respecting the rules of the game and the places where cache's could be hidden.

 

2nd and most important point - it's wrong to have a pop at cachers for doing the responsible thing and following the rules, when a rule is clearly pointed out, as has been here. It may be unrelated, but Master Mariner has seen fit to archive all his Riverside series of cache's around Greenwich Peninsula, and (forgive me for meddling!) I think I speak for the masses when I say that's a great shame, as it is an excellent series of well maintained and well thought out cache's - with, from what I understand, permission to be there.

 

So - for now, I'll leave my cache's archived, as I have no permission for them to be there. I'm going to send the log books to the park authorities and try and explain exactly how good caching is at getting people to places they may not usually visit, and maybe suggest working with THEM to set caches, it may take some time, but hopefully i'll get them re-instated.

 

What would ALSO be good (and forgive me again for meddling!) is if whoever started throwing mud around about what is and isn't right could have a re-think, and maybe address that - as currently Greenwich has not only lost it's park cache's, but well over a dozen more good cache's that have been archived for some unknown reason but i would guess to make (quite rightfully) a point. Whether this is unrelated, or whether those concerned change their respective minds or not who can say, but for the good of Greenwich Geocaching, I hope something gets resolved.....

 

I'll get off my soap box now....

 

Good caching folks !

 

Firelanterns.

Link to comment

Not off topic, although not about London Parks, as it is entwined in the general point of permission to place caches.

 

Last weekend, we attempted this cache GC1F2JN where the location was soon found to be at the back of a motel, some 600 yds from the public roadside footpath. We basically got seen by the staff and challenged, and then sternly asked to leave as we were trespassing.

 

The point is that putting a cache there without permission was a dumb thing to do, since any staff seeing strangers lurking around the back of the motel are going to either challenge or call the cops. I'm just glad it wasn't the latter. I had fears of a couple of Black n'Whites turning up while the staff kept us talking; we have no idea what their burglary/intruder rate was around there.

 

I've put a SBA log on the cache and am waiting to see what happens. <_<

So I agree entirely with Firelanterns.

Link to comment

I've put a SBA log on the cache and am waiting to see what happens. <_<

 

Now that's where I would have logged the same message, but as a note. The owner sees it, other cachers see it, but it is just a little more subtle and less commanding. I know it's a small difference, but that's me.

 

In general (and it has recently been highlighted in the camping thread and this thread) I would prefer to see more freedom to make decisions in the hands of the cache owner.

Link to comment

When I was notified by Graculus that the park authorities didn't want cache's in the park, I archived them straight away, and removed the physical boxes within a few days. The responsible thing to do, and following the guidelines of geocaching.

Firelanterns has cast new light on this issue: up to now we only had the e-mail from the Greenwich officials to go on, which refused permission for any NEW caches (because of the perceived increased security risk - whatever that means) but didn't say anything about existing ones. Although it was rather ambiguously worded.

 

It appears from Firelanterns post that Graculus checked, and discovered that all caches in the park are seen as a major security risk. So I can see why there appears to be little hope of ever reinstating any caches in the area.

Link to comment

I've put a SBA log on the cache and am waiting to see what happens. <_<

Now that's where I would have logged the same message, but as a note. The owner sees it, other cachers see it, but it is just a little more subtle and less commanding. I know it's a small difference, but that's me.

In this case it is the right action to post an SBA, all caches MUST have permission.

Link to comment

All, yes ALL containers are security risks. EVERY container is such a risk.

Permission from Mr A. doesn't mean Mr B has knowledge of it.

The idea is to hide a container from "everyone" including a small minority...US!

If found by the Big Boys then archive asap and move on.

Thats the game as I play it.

<_<

Link to comment

I've put a SBA log on the cache and am waiting to see what happens. :D

 

Now that's where I would have logged the same message, but as a note. The owner sees it, other cachers see it, but it is just a little more subtle and less commanding. I know it's a small difference, but that's me.

 

In general (and it has recently been highlighted in the camping thread and this thread) I would prefer to see more freedom to make decisions in the hands of the cache owner.

 

I used to be that 'subtle', but now I've seen so many caches with repeated entries as either Notes or Found Logs, which state that the lid/box/tub is cracked/split/water logged, which have been continually ignored by the owner (sometimes because the owner is long stopped caching), I now make Needs Maintenance or SBA as appropriate. The reason there are so many inappropriate caches out there is because of people being too polite and soft and not using the correct course of action.

In this case a SBA because that way the Reviewer gets a notification and if the owner is not up to it, then the Reviewer is in a position to Archive it. :P

 

We can't complain about 'bad' caches if we are not prepared to make a stand and use the rules/guidelines as written. :D

Link to comment

The guidelines are very clear about how a cache should be put out, clearly labelled, a stash note and so on. They also make it clear that finders should report caches that need maintenance.

 

If you find a cache that needs sorting out then log it, either needs maintenance if the problem has just occurred or if there is a string of DNF's with comments and no response from the owner then a needs archived.

 

Allow a reasonable time for an owner to respond to your log. If the problem has been there for 'a few weeks' I'll give them 8 days to respond to my reviewer logs. If it has only just 'gone missing' I'll bookmark it for action in 2 months - the owner should have replaced or archived by then.

 

A little tip. If you do find a cache in a poor state (damaged or exposed container etc) and it has trackables in it then it is a good idea to remove them and put them in other caches before they go missing. Remember to log them and check in case any are 'resident' in that cache. Let the owner know.

 

Graculus

Link to comment

All to often I've seen cache owners become upset that a reviewer has archived their cache (and in most cases this is a result of the owners inaction). Under current GSP guidelines, owners are given time (IMO, more than enough time) to sort their cache out, so I'm a little puzzled as to why they then blame the reviewer for their inaction.

 

(I know there are other eventualities, but I'm only highlighting this one).

Link to comment

Oh well I suppose it wont be long before the caches in all the Royal Parks have to be archived.

 

I'm sure Goldpot would have something to say about that!!

 

Some cachers know that I work in Regent's Park, like Greenwich Park is also a Royal Park.

Although I'm a head gardener I did seek permission from the park manager (at the time) to place my caches which he was happy to allow me to do. I also keep an eye out for 3 caches placed here by other cachers which the park manager knows about but I don't think permission was asked - in fact my colleagues knew about them long before I became a cacher myself, but they left them in situ as they did not see them as a security/litter problem.

 

And I think that's the different between Regent's and Greenwich Parks - I guess, I must stress [/i]guess[/i], that the caches in Greenwich Park were placed without permission from the park manager and the 'Landscape Team' (like us in Regent's are contractors for the Royal Parks) probably found a cache and treated it as litter and complained to the park manager who then used the 'security' excuse.

 

I guess that the Royal Parks as a whole does not have any Geocaching rulings, but, it's left to individual park managers to decide what he/she feels best for their park.

 

It simply goes back to the Geocaching rule - seek permission from the landowner before placing out caches.

Link to comment

I just wanted to post a last note on this topic before leaving the forum.

 

I won’t quote the posts I’m answering, just refer to the poster’s name and post number.

 

Mandarin – Post 24

 

I simply don’t agree with you that what I posted was a “personal attack.” It is possible for two people to disagree about something and to say so without it being an attack. I went out of my way to describe the Master Mariner as “a good bloke.” Your complete deletion of the post while describing it as an “attack” etc gives a negative impression when in fact it was a civil post that just disagreed with someone actions.

 

Haggis Hunter – Post 27

 

I won’t be running anything by the GAGB or the reviewing team because I will not be taking this issue any further. When you say “it worries me that he has self-appointed himself to be the speaker for our pasttime with the park authorities” I just want to make it clear that I do not wish to be the speaker for you or geocaching or anyone.

 

When I first heard that geocaching in the park was to be stopped, the news was delivered in such a way that made it sound like the authorities had just woken up one morning and decided to ban it for no reason. Since then it has become clear that their requests were not out of the blue, but were in response to a geocacher writing in and asking if he could place several new caches in the park. I obviously still disagree with the authorities wishing to stop people geocaching, but it wasn’t quite as random as it seemed when I first heard about it.

 

Since posting on this forum I have been a little surprised to find out how sensitive and political things are. I enjoy finding little boxes hidden in the woods, but I do not want to get involved in the politics of caching.

 

I have good friends (keen geocachers ironically) who are on the staff of the museum in the park, and I did wonder if they would be a useful point of contact, but I now see just how sensitive the subject of permissions in Royal Parks etc is. I hope that the cacher who started this chain of events can soon sort it out and get geocaching restored to the home of the prime meridian.

 

Dorsetgal + GeoDog – Post 28

 

Yes, it’s a great shame indeed about the riverside caches. I have no idea why they have been archived.

 

Firelanterns – Post 32

 

When you say “not only lost it’s park caches but well over a dozen more good caches that have been archived for some unknown reason but I would guess to make (quite rightfully) a point...”

 

I really don’t understand what point is being made by archiving them? They are very local to me so I had done most of them ages ago, so the owner is not frustrating me. Taking them off line just serves to stop many other people from enjoying them. I really don't understand what point is being made. It really feels to me as if someone has thrown their toys out of the pram. If the riverside caches stay off-line then perhaps other Greenwich cachers will eventually replace the series.

 

 

I wish you all very happy Geocaching and hopefully one day soon the caches in Greenwich Park will be restored.

 

 

Cheers mateys. :)

Link to comment
I wasn't pushing for it to be squished; I thought it might have permission :D

I guess, since it's only active in error, it's just as well I highlighted it; we don't want angry gardeners hammering your door down :)

:D
That's the angry face, and you look after (very beautiful) gardens... :D

Can you expand on that 'smiley' Goldpot? I'm not sure if you're angry with the situation, that I played a very tiny part in it (I'm sure the error would have been spotted by a reviewer before long, one way or another, and if it wasn't, there would be more Greenwich caching trouble in store) or with me for using the image of angry gardeners as a light comic motif?

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...