Greenwich Park, London. Caches archived.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

ThePirateKing - Post 48

 

If your previous posts had been as well constructed as this and as politely put, then you would never have had a comment from me.

 

I could not agree more!

 

It saddened me when I saw your (now deleted) post Pirate King, which was posted in the early hours of the morning last weekend, and frankly it did smack of finger pointing and recommendations likely to bring geocaching into disrepute.

 

It would not surprise me one jot if it was the reason for MM withdrawing from the situation, frankly, I would have felt the same way. Remember, in your post you made direct reference to his Riverside series, a series which has been enjoyed by hundreds of cachers ... you also suggested asking for permission, and then sharing the response with the reviewers was something that MM should not have done ... all NOT within keeping of the ethos of geocaching. Your post was a personal attack on someone and as such could not remain, although, I agree had it done so, many more people would now understand why the Riverside series is gone!!!!

 

I have never met him but I do have a good deal of respect for MM and the efforts he went to in setting so many caches, in interesting locations for other cachers to enjoy. The loss of his caches is a loss to not only the British cachers but overseas cachers too.

 

I do not take your point that this is all about politics at all, it is about having respect for what is clearly a Royal Park and trying to find a way where geocaching and security/park authorities could move foraward in harmony, as indeed it has in other places, merely keeping "schtum" as you put it, once security fears, founded or unfounded have been voiced, is not always the solution.

[+goldpot]

I wasn't pushing for it to be squished; I thought it might have permission

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

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

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?

 

[+Simply Paul]

I wasn't pushing for it to be squished; I thought it might have permission

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

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

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?

Thanks for the clarification

[+allieballie]

Hadn't read this thread for a few days so am a bit unsure if it's wise to post anything more on here but I just wanted to share something that though not directly related to geocaching, might be of relevance with regard to how the Greenwich Park folks are dealing with things being placed in the park by the public.

 

I was reading an article in last Sunday's Observer about "ghost bikes" - white bicycles which are placed as memorials to cyclists who have been killed on the roads. I was interested to read that there had been one in Greenwich Park but it was taken away after a few weeks following discussions with the Royal Parks.

 

Link is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art

 

Paragraph 5 of the main article