New Forest Caches

[Deceangi]

The New Forest Landowner Placement Agreement is up for it's annual renewal. On checking the No's in preparation for renewing it, the GAGB Committee [with whom the Agreement is with] has discovered that we have reached the maximum No of Permitted caches [100 caches] .

 

As such the UK Reviewer Team have no option but to place a Temporary Ban on Publishing New Cache Submissions, to comply with the requirements of the Agreement.

 

In the mean time the GAGB Negotiator will reopen discussions with the New Forest regarding increasing the permitted No of caches allowed. As there is a good working relationship between the NF and GAGB, it is hoped that these negotiations will be successful

 

As soon as the negotiations have reached their conclusion, the GAGB Committee will make a official announcement about the outcome of the negotiations

 

Deceangi

 

on behalf of the UK Reviewer Team

[+DizzyPair]

OK Thanks very much for keeping us informed.

[+Bambography]

Good that there are on going negotiations, but don't push it too far in the forest. Although it is the most obvious place for lots of well hidden caches, it is also quite nice that they are spread out and decent caches!

[+t.a.folk]

Are the caches placed in the East Dorset F.C. areas counted in the 100?

[Deceangi]

Are the caches placed in the East Dorset F.C. areas counted in the 100?

 

That part of the agreement was negotiated separately and added on to the agreement at a later date. As permission must first be obtained through Bill D (wwh) Chairman of the GAGB it is in affect a separate Agreement so No these caches are not included in the New Forest Agreement Limitations on No's.

 

If you intend on passing a request for permission to place a cache on East Dorset F.C. areas over to Bill, please do so.

 

The maximum of 100 caches is not site specific and covers Navicache & Terracache caches, the Agreement is specifically with the GAGB and not individual cachers.

 

Deci

[+Pharisee]

The maximum of 100 caches is not site specific and covers Navicache & Terracache caches, the Agreement is specifically with the GAGB and not individual cachers.

 

Deci

 

 

Is there a formal agreement between the GAGB and Navicache / Terracache to limit the total number of caches in the New Forest to 100 ?

 

From reading the post on the GAGB forum, there doesn't seem to be any contact or dialogue between them so what's to stop Navicachers or Terracachers from just going out and placing caches whenever / wherever they feel like it ?

[+purple_pineapple]

The maximum of 100 caches is not site specific and covers Navicache & Terracache caches, the Agreement is specifically with the GAGB and not individual cachers.

 

Deci

 

 

Is there a formal agreement between the GAGB and Navicache / Terracache to limit the total number of caches in the New Forest to 100 ?

 

From reading the post on the GAGB forum, there doesn't seem to be any contact or dialogue between them so what's to stop Navicachers or Terracachers from just going out and placing caches whenever / wherever they feel like it ?

 

Agreed - there appears to be nothing to stop this happening, which could see a ban on any caches in the NF if things got out of hand. Does a similar situation apply to ALL situations where Landowner Agreements are in place? I'm thinking National Trust and so on? All of which could be put in jeopardy, as I'm sure the Landowners won't care which listing site a cache is on.

 

My apologies if such agreements are followed on TC and NV - that wasn't the impression I got though!

 

I don't know what the answer is though - possibly except letting landowners know that other listing sites don't necessarily follow the landowner agreements!

 

Discuss!

 

PS, apologies if this is too OT - I'll spin it into a new thread if you like!

[+mongoose39uk]

I think so far as Terracaching is concerned it would be down to Individual sponsors/reviewers. I know that the GAGB has tried in the past to contact people further up the tree but with no response.

 

So yes, I would guess it would be possible fro Terracachers to place caches in the New Forest and potentially breach the agreement.

[+The Hungry Caterpillars]

I think it is best to tread very carefully and not lose the goodwill that has led to the agreement in the first place. I would hope that that good will wont be lost by irresponsible behaviour on anybodies part.

And sometimes when it comes to caches less is really more.

Perhaps a 100 is enough?

[+mongoose39uk]

I think it is best to tread very carefully and not lose the goodwill that has led to the agreement in the first place. I would hope that that good will wont be lost by irresponsible behaviour on anybodies part.

And sometimes when it comes to caches less is really more.

Perhaps a 100 is enough?

 

I think your right about treading carefully and not loosing the goodwill. Since the initial problems in the area a good relationship has developed.

 

I had noticed over the last couple of weeks a number of new caches coming up in the area so I decided to have a quick check on the numbers. The GAGB committee and the reviewers liaised yesterday evening before taking any action.

 

It may well be that the area can support more caches and I know this is something that Dave (Wombles) will be looking at.

[+t.a.folk]

Are the caches placed in the East Dorset F.C. areas counted in the 100?

 

That part of the agreement was negotiated separately and added on to the agreement at a later date. As permission must first be obtained through Bill D (wwh) Chairman of the GAGB it is in affect a separate Agreement so No these caches are not included in the New Forest Agreement Limitations on No's.

 

If you intend on passing a request for permission to place a cache on East Dorset F.C. areas over to Bill, please do so.The maximum of 100 caches is not site specific and covers Navicache & Terracache caches, the Agreement is specifically with the GAGB and not individual cachers.

 

Deci

Thanks for clarity .

We don't have intentionions to request to place a cache on East Dorset this side of the New Year .

 

Had the 100 caches agreement included East Dorset we would have culled the least found of our 10 active caches there ,feeling that us owning 10% of the quota might have seemed a bit excessive .

Edited November 21, 2008 by t.a.folk

[Deceangi]

Are the caches placed in the East Dorset F.C. areas counted in the 100?

 

That part of the agreement was negotiated separately and added on to the agreement at a later date. As permission must first be obtained through Bill D (wwh) Chairman of the GAGB it is in affect a separate Agreement so No these caches are not included in the New Forest Agreement Limitations on No's.

 

If you intend on passing a request for permission to place a cache on East Dorset F.C. areas over to Bill, please do so.The maximum of 100 caches is not site specific and covers Navicache & Terracache caches, the Agreement is specifically with the GAGB and not individual cachers.

 

Deci

Thanks for clarity .

We don't have intentionions to request to place a cache on East Dorset this side of the New Year .

 

Had the 100 caches agreement included East Dorset we would have culled the least found of our 10 active caches there ,feeling that us owning 10% of the quota might have seemed a bit excessive .

 

Thank you for being prepared to make such a generous offer. It is very much appreciated

 

Deci

[+DizzyPair]

We have 12 caches in the New Forest.

 

If the agreement remains at the limit of 100, then we too are willing to surrender some caches so that others can place their caches there.

 

At the moment we will wait for the news.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

We have 12 caches in the New Forest.

 

If the agreement remains at the limit of 100, then we too are willing to surrender some caches so that others can place their caches there.

 

At the moment we will wait for the news.

 

<adopts panto voice>

 

Ooooh no you don't!!!!

 

At least til I've found 'em, your caches are always fun!

[+Foinavon]

As an onlooker who has not visited the New Forest since childhood, could it be that 100 is enough? I imagine all the best spots will now be occupied. Could it be the case that anymore placements would just be "place fillers".

Some places around my neck of the woods are becoming a bit saturated, imho these upper limits are quite a good thing.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

As an onlooker who has not visited the New Forest since childhood, could it be that 100 is enough?

 

Then best leave it to those in the know!

 

As someone who has cached in the Forest reasonably recently and frequently, I don't know if there are enough or not, haven't studied the facts. Happy to leave it to GAGB and the landowners to decide.

 

There are many excellent caches in the area and long may they last!

 

Indeed, even when there was a large micro trail set a while back it was extremely popular and brought many more cachers to the area.

 

For info:

 

"The New Forest Heritage Area covers about 580 km² (143321 acres), and the New Forest SSSI covers almost 300 km² (74131 acres), making it the largest contiguous area of un-sown vegetation in lowland Britain. It includes roughly:

 

146 km² (36077 acres) of broadleaf woodland

118 km² (29158 acres) of heathland and grassland

33 km² (8154 acres) of wet heathland

84 km² (20756 acres) of tree plantations ("inclosures") established since the 18th century, including 80 km² (19768 acres) planted by the Forestry Commission since the 1920s.

It is drained to the south by two rivers, the Lymington and Beaulieu." Source = Wiki

[+Bambography]

Then best leave it to those in the know!

I agree, however....

 

For info:

"The New Forest Heritage Area covers about 580 km² (143321 acres), and the New Forest SSSI covers almost 300 km² (74131 acres), making it the largest contiguous area of un-sown vegetation in lowland Britain.

... with those number an area of 58km2 per cache is hardly saturated. I've been to the forest many many times over the last few years and know several locations which i'd hide caches. One of which I may do if they allow more. (I realise this does counteract my previous post...)

[+Foinavon]

As an onlooker who has not visited the New Forest since childhood, could it be that 100 is enough?

 

Then best leave it to those in the know!

 

As someone who has cached in the Forest reasonably recently and frequently, I don't know if there are enough or not, haven't studied the facts. Happy to leave it to GAGB and the landowners to decide.

 

 

Fair enough, I tried to do a teeny bit of research by looking at Google Earth. Interestingly when you put New Forest, England into Google Earh you get the other New Forest. Did you know there was one? I didn't.

It's in the North East!

 

 

Indeed, even when there was a large micro trail set a while back it was extremely popular and brought many more cachers to the area.

 

 

I'm sure it did. However you could put a large micro trail on contaminated wasteland and it would extremely popular and bring many more cachers to the area.

 

Anyway I'll butt out now.

[+DizzyPair]

The first post of this Thread informed us that “the GAGB Negotiator will reopen discussions with the New Forest regarding increasing the permitted number of caches allowed. As there is a good working relationship between the NF and GAGB, it is hoped that these negotiations will be successful”.

 

We have seen further down the Thread that some people believe that 100 is enough.

 

We live close to the New Forest, have found most of the caches there, and have 12 placed there ourselves.

 

Here is our view.

 

100 caches in the New Forest is not enough. The Forest is not full of caches.

 

If you consider that some visitors prefer to go to explore remote areas of the Forest, there are still several remote areas that have no cache.

Some visitors prefer to ride on the many kms of designated cycle track. A long Series of caches could be placed close to these cycle tracks.

Wheelchair users and cachers pushing buggies should be considered, with caches available for them.

What about the Historians. You just need to look at a detailed map of the New Forest and you will see numerous historical sites that are worthy of a cache.

 

Ok. Some of the readers will be saying “Why don’t we put caches on the cycle tracks or near the historical sites etc?”. We will if we can.

 

Don’t forget this:

The “100” is containers, not stand alone caches.

So yesterday we went to the New Forest and found a Multi Cache. If the limit remains at 100 containers then there could only be 16 caches in the whole of the Forest.

 

There is a fair mix of caches in the New Forest now, but as more people take up geocaching, they will also want to place their own caches. Do they have to wait until a current cache owner archives their cache? If the limit remains at 100 then some people will never be able to place a cache here.

If the Forestry Commission is concerned about the impact that we as cachers make, then they should also consider the fact that a lot of people come to the New Forest with the sole intention of finding some caches. It is good for the Tourist industry. People come and camp in the Forest and go caching. The more caches, the more visitors.

 

Hopefully, the permitted numbers will be increased.

 

Perhaps the ‘limit’ could be removed.

 

Perhaps the way ahead may be to remove the limit but increase the proximity distance to 500 metres. This would allow many more caches to be placed but spread them around more evenly.

Perhaps some control should be taken over the type of cache being placed. 100 traditional caches might be better than less than 20 multi caches.

Perhaps ‘offset’ caches should be used rather than multi caches with several stages.

Anyway, we hope that Dave (Wombles) can get the permitted number increased.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[+Bambography]

Just a quick message of support for what DizzyPair said. I especially like the concept on an increased buffer zone as this will keep them spaced out but prevent total saturation.

[+Foinavon]

You know what, I think there should be more caches in the New Forest.

Especially if this is the alternative!

[+hawkeye81]

You know what, I think there should be more caches in the New Forest.

Especially if this is the alternative!

 

Same people? Last year

[+Foinavon]

You know what, I think there should be more caches in the New Forest.

Especially if this is the alternative!

 

Same people? Last year

 

Interesting that both "attractions" blame bad weather as a reason for their troubles, one would have thought that cold and wind would make the "Lapland Experience" more authentic!

[+t.a.folk]

You know what, I think there should be more caches in the New Forest.

Especially if this is the alternative!

 

Same people? Last year

 

Interesting that both "attractions" blame bad weather as a reason for their troubles, one would have thought that cold and wind would make the "Lapland Experience" more authentic!

Not sure why they advertise it as a Lap land New Forest experience .

It is 1 K west of the most westerly part of the National Park New Forest boundary .

[nobby.nobbs]

Just listening to the news now. people surprised that there was no snow and there was mud! shock horror, no snow in dorset and loads of mud!!!!

[+Stuey]

Just listening to the news now. people surprised that there was no snow and there was mud! shock horror, no snow in dorset and loads of mud!!!!

 

They expected it because the advertising promised it. "Snow covered village" and fake snow and Hollywood special effects from the same company that did Narnia, Harry Potter etc. etc. A lot of the photos on the BBC news bulletins were taken by a friend of mine.

 

How do we get back on to a caching topic? How about "I wonder if there are any caches in Lapland New Forest?"

[+hawkeye81]

You know what, I think there should be more caches in the New Forest.

Especially if this is the alternative!

 

Same people? Last year

 

To clarify, they did say on the News last night that the New Forest lapland is nothing to do with the one which was at Bedgbury last year (and is a Bewl Water this year).

[+Bambography]

How do we get back on to a caching topic? How about "I wonder if there are any caches in Lapland New Forest?"

Commercial caches? I hope not!

[+ruggedswordfish]

Having lived in the New forest until recently, and currently visiting it at least twice a month. I feel that more geocaches are needed in the forest. My family live in Milford on Sea just outside the national boundary and caches until recently have been far and few between.

 

I am a DofE Trainer/Assessor and love finding caches whilst out monitoring groups. One of my groups wanted to use Geocaching as a "Theme" for their expedition, but they couldn't find to many around or at least close enough to their designated camp site.

[+Happy Humphrey]

More news here.

[+ExploreNationalParks]

I would love to add a cache to the New Forest - after the ist Jan... would like a better idea of how to do it though, can someone please advise....

 

Thanks

[+The Wombles]

I would love to add a cache to the New Forest - after the ist Jan... would like a better idea of how to do it though, can someone please advise....

 

Thanks

 

Mail sent

[+fatblokecaver]

Many years when I was having a bash at letterboxing there were over 250 letterboxes 'lurking' in the New Forest.

They were hidden all over the forest and stealth was the key. I have tried to find out if they are still out there but to no avail. The co ordinator lived in Southampton somewhere but I think he went abroad. I have also taken a look at one or two of the boxes I had visited previously but they had gone. The forestry commission obviously did not like the boxes being there and when discovered they were just thrown away as litter!!! There were a hard corps of boxers in the forest with some superb series put out, If I remember rightly the Standing Water series went on for 25 miles. There was also one box near every trig point in the forest - all you had to do was work out which clues matched which trig point.

I am very suprised that the Forrestry commission have limited the amount of caches to 100 think of the income they could produce from camping cachers holidaying!!!

 

FBC

[+Bill D (wwh)]

Many years when I was having a bash at letterboxing there were over 250 letterboxes 'lurking' in the New Forest.

They were hidden all over the forest and stealth was the key. I have tried to find out if they are still out there but to no avail. The co ordinator lived in Southampton somewhere but I think he went abroad. I have also taken a look at one or two of the boxes I had visited previously but they had gone. The forestry commission obviously did not like the boxes being there and when discovered they were just thrown away as litter!!! There were a hard corps of boxers in the forest with some superb series put out, If I remember rightly the Standing Water series went on for 25 miles. There was also one box near every trig point in the forest - all you had to do was work out which clues matched which trig point.

I am very suprised that the Forrestry commission have limited the amount of caches to 100 think of the income they could produce from camping cachers holidaying!!!

 

FBC

I don't know if it still holds, but Letterboxers used to have an agreement with the Forestry Commission in the New Forest. I believe a condition of that agreement was that they didn't publicly advertise the activity. I did once have a contact address for Letterboxers there, but I seem to have lost it.