Dartmoor and Salisbury Plain - Permission needed to place caches

[+Oxygen Thief]

Are you aware that we now have to seek the permission of the landowner before placing new caches in Dartmoor or Salisbury Plain? This is because they are SSSI (sites of special scientific interest).

Edited August 25, 2009 by Oxygen Thief

[+HazelS]

Er... you've ALWAYS had to get the permission of the landowner to place ANY cache!!!!

[+Oxygen Thief]

Er... you've ALWAYS had to get the permission of the landowner to place ANY cache!!!!

 

that's not the case at all. Ever heard of PUBLIC land and PUBLIC rights of way.

 

In that case shall I start removing all the geocaches I find that haven't had specific permission ? You want to get your facts right.

 

[insults removed by Admin. - MissJenn]

[+keehotee]

Er... you've ALWAYS had to get the permission of the landowner to place ANY cache!!!!

that's not the case at all. Ever heard of PUBLIC land and PUBLIC rights of way.

 

In that case shall I start removing all the geocaches I find that haven't had specific permission ? You want to get your facts right.

 

[insults removed by Admin. - MissJenn]

 

1. Wind your neck in and stop being so abusive to other forum users.

 

2. There is NO publicly owned land in the UK - it's all owned by somebody, whether you have a right of access to it or not.

 

3. How do you know which of the caches you find have specific permission? I don't copy and paste permission replies on any of my caches - do you?

 

4. Large lumps of Dartmoor have been SSSI s for many, many years.

[nobby.nobbs]

If only there was an organisation that listed all the agreements that exist in the UK.....

 

SSSI's are harder but not impossible to get permission on. And permission is the thing that you tick the box on every cache submission page that says that you have asked for permission. Maybe you noticed it ?

[+keehotee]

I've just spoken to the senior ranger at Dartmoor NPA.

They have no specific policy or permission issues regarding geocaching, but ask that all caches are hidden in accordance with their letterboxing code of conduct, which can be found here.

[Nediam]

In that case shall I start removing all the geocaches I find that haven't had specific permission ? .....

If you suspect a cache has been placed without permission you should report it to the Reviewers and/or the landowner. If the cache has been placed without permission it becomes the property of the landowner, or the cache owner could report it as lost property. If you remove it and you don't hand it in to the police, you could be guilty of theft (by finding).

 

You want to get your facts right and get in the real world with everyone else.

Are you sure of your "facts"?

 

By the way, posts with an aggressive or abusive tone don't tend to go down very well with people round here. Apologies, on the other hand, are much more warmly received

[+Happy Humphrey]

If you suspect a cache has been placed without permission you should report it to the Reviewers and/or the landowner.

...but ONLY if it's clearly causing a problem. Otherwise, why stir up unwelcome fuss?

 

So you find a magnetic micro, well-hidden on the underside of a metal bench at a village bus stop. It would be unlikely that anyone has actually given explicit permission for this (the pebble on the floor next to the bench probably wasn't placed with full written permission either!). Who's really going to thank you for calling on the local authority to investigate this transgression? What would that achieve?

 

I would only report a cache where it's clearly annoying someone or causing embarrassment to cache seekers.

 

If the cache has been placed without permission it becomes the property of the landowner, or the cache owner could report it as lost property.

Is that true? Where do you get that information from? I'm not doubting your word, it but it sounds unlikely so would be worth double-checking; it's quite an important point. For instance, if a box containing travelling geocoins (including one of mine) is found by the landowner at the side of a public footpath, you're saying that my geocoin now becomes his legal property - unless he explicitly gave permission for the cache?

 

I seem to recall that the New Forest management once collected up most of the caches on their land, but were careful to store them for collection and never claimed them as their property.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Are you aware that we now have to seek the permission of the landowner before placing new caches in Dartmoor or Salisbury Plain? This is because they are SSSI (sites of special scientific interest).

Regarding Dartmoor, this isn't true. Apart from the lack of need for permission (as kindly checked by Keehotee), large parts of the National Park are not SSSI. See this map for clarification.

[nobby.nobbs]

rapidly going off topic but :

 

If you find something you must take all reasonable steps to identify the owner of the property. If you just assume that "finders keepers" applies you commit the offence of theft by finding, regardless of whether you own the property upon which it was found.

In practical terms this means handing in the item at a police station.

 

Even if you throw the item in the bin you have still committed the offence of theft by finding as you have assumed the rights of the owner by doing so.

[Nediam]

If you suspect a cache has been placed without permission you should report it to the Reviewers and/or the landowner.

...but ONLY if it's clearly causing a problem. Otherwise, why stir up unwelcome fuss?

 

So you find a magnetic micro, well-hidden on the underside of a metal bench at a village bus stop. It would be unlikely that anyone has actually given explicit permission for this (the pebble on the floor next to the bench probably wasn't placed with full written permission either!). Who's really going to thank you for calling on the local authority to investigate this transgression? What would that achieve?

 

I would only report a cache where it's clearly annoying someone or causing embarrassment to cache seekers.

 

If the cache has been placed without permission it becomes the property of the landowner, or the cache owner could report it as lost property.

Is that true? Where do you get that information from? I'm not doubting your word, it but it sounds unlikely so would be worth double-checking; it's quite an important point. For instance, if a box containing travelling geocoins (including one of mine) is found by the landowner at the side of a public footpath, you're saying that my geocoin now becomes his legal property - unless he explicitly gave permission for the cache?

 

I seem to recall that the New Forest management once collected up most of the caches on their land, but were careful to store them for collection and never claimed them as their property.

I wasn't the one trying to stir up fuss It seems that the OP had intended to "wage war" on caches placed without permission, and I was trying to show them that it would be against their best interests to take it upon themselves to remove them.

 

As regards to my info - Some was taken from a Special Police Constables forum citing similar circumstances. But similar info can be found here in the "Mislaid property" section

 

"Property is generally deemed to have been mislaid or misplaced if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did intend to set it, but then simply forgot to pick it up again. For example, a wallet found in a shop lying on a counter near a cash register will likely be deemed misplaced rather than lost. Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his misplaced item. If the true owner does not return within a reasonable time (which varies considerably depending on the circumstances), the property becomes that of the owner of the premises."

 

It all depends on circumstances and precidents of course. And as to whether a cache would be deemed misplaced, lost or abandoned...

Edited August 26, 2009 by Nediam

[+Happy Humphrey]

It seems that the OP had intended to "wage war" on caches placed without permission, and I was trying to show them that it would be against their best interests to take it upon themselves to remove them.

If that was the intention, I didn't see it in the OP's posts. But I was merely emphasising that there should be no "cache police" action taken (of any kind) where a cache is operating in a satisfactory fashion, in case the less experienced got the idea that all caches had to have explicit permission and should be "reported" if not.

 

And as to whether a cache would be deemed misplaced, lost or abandoned...

A bit off topic again, so apologies to the esteemed OP. We've discussed this on the main forum before. I think that the Wikipedia article on abandoned property, despite the passing mention of old English law, is US-based and can't be trusted. But if it's correct, a geocache isn't abandoned unless its web page has been disabled. Such a geocache clearly isn't mislaid or misplaced quite the opposite as care has been taken to note the location.

 

So, as nobby points out, a landowner appropriating the contents is simply stealing, and permission for placement doesn't enter into the argument.

[Nediam]

It seems that the OP had intended to "wage war" on caches placed without permission...

If that was the intention, I didn't see it in the OP's posts....

 

Says it here.....

.....

In that case shall I start removing all the geocaches I find that haven't had specific permission ? .....

 

So, as nobby points out, a landowner appropriating the contents is simply stealing, and permission for placement doesn't enter into the argument.

That goes for anyone removing the cache - which was what I was trying to point out to Oxygen Thief

 

Who, by the way, was being rather abusive to another poster.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Nediam

[+HazelS]

Er... you've ALWAYS had to get the permission of the landowner to place ANY cache!!!!

that's not the case at all. Ever heard of PUBLIC land and PUBLIC rights of way.

 

In that case shall I start removing all the geocaches I find that haven't had specific permission ? You want to get your facts right.

 

[insults removed by Admin. - MissJenn]

 

Ok... where to start!

 

All land in England and Wales (Scotland is slightly different) is owned by SOMEONE, be it a private individual, the National Trust, The forestry Commission or the Local council - the list is certainly not exhaustive!

 

Most "Public land" that you refer to above is actually owned by the Local Authority - and within local authorities, may be "owned" by individual departments - for example, there is a well know park in the area I work in that is actually owned by the Housing Department, most other public land is owned by Leisure or Countryside Services.

 

"Rights of Way" that you refer to are just that - a right of way across someone's land!! That means that someone (usually a historic reason) has negotiated with the land owner for a "right of way" across the landowner's property. The land still belongs to the land owner.

 

I once approached our Countryside Service for permission to place a cache on a certain footpath, they explained that it was a right of way - and thus belonged to the local farmer (who later gave me permission) and that if the footpath was a PUBLIC FOOTPATH, then the land belonged to them, and they could give permission.

 

Even land on PUBLIC footpaths belongs to SOMEONE...

[+The Patrician]

All land in England & Wales is owned by the Crown, ever since a certain William the B******* popped over in 1066 and conquered England. Wales was added later by his heirs. Scotland, as ever, is different.

 

Good King Bill then divided England up amongst his barons, keeping ownership but giving them a tenancy on the land. The barons continued this tenancy and sub-tenancy down to the level of us plebs. That's why you don't own the land your house stands on, you own the Freehold (you don't pay rent to anyone) or the Leasehold (you do pay rent to someone).

 

That's why the Crown finds it so easy to acquire land for various purposes; they already own it.

 

Edit: Footpaths and public highways - you have a legal right to "pass" and "re-pass", you can be done for loitering! You don't have a right to picnic, or watch racehorses (famous legal case, the name escapes me). You probably don't have the right to place plastic boxes, or indeed to grub about in the hedge looking for them! The answer is to be discreet.

 

Regards,

 

Neil

Edited August 26, 2009 by Neil Pugh

[+Happy Humphrey]

which was what I was trying to point out to Oxygen Thief

I got your drift there, but I was trying to clarify the matter. I don't think that the OP was intending to act on this, he was pointing out (albeit very clumsily) that there are plenty of caches without specific permission and that if this permission is so essential then perhaps they shouldn't be there (that's why he said "In that case shall I start removing..." in that ironic tone) .

 

Of course, HazelS is correct in that we should always check whether specific permission will be needed before placing a cache. But as we've just had demonstrated, the OP is also correct that in the real world practice, specific permission for a cache is not always required, or even desirable, and it's important to keep a perspective when cache placing.

 

Neil's excellent summary is well worth understanding too, if you're inclined to believe that a "landowner" has to have the final say!

[+mtn-man]

that's not the case at all. Ever heard of PUBLIC land and PUBLIC rights of way.

 

In that case shall I start removing all the geocaches I find that haven't had specific permission ? You want to get your facts right.

 

[insults removed by Admin. - MissJenn]

If you would like to get into the real world with everyone else, my suggestion would be to treat people as you would like to be treated. The real world has rules and guidelines. This forum has a set of guidelines. Please follow them.

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

Edited August 26, 2009 by MissJenn

[+t.a.folk]

Edit: Footpaths and public highways - you have a legal right to "pass" and "re-pass", you can be done for loitering! You don't have a right to picnic, or watch racehorses (famous legal case, the name escapes me). Regards,

 

Neil

 

The legal case could be the

 

"Hickman v.Maisy ,1900.Queens Bench "

 

The New Market tipster ,who had walked to and fro over about fifteen yards of highway (verge )for over an hour to watch and take notes of race horse trails on the plaintiff's land adjoining the highway

.

[+mongoose39uk]

Someone got a hidden agenda, feels like we ain't getting the full Jackanory here.

[+The Patrician]

 

The legal case could be the

 

"Hickman v.Maisy ,1900.Queens Bench "

 

 

Those sound like the blokes I was thinking of. I haven't looked at my college law notes for many, many years.

 

Regards,

 

Neil

[+Bear and Ragged]

Someone got a hidden agenda, feels like we ain't getting the full Jackanory here.

Seconded.

[+Oxygen Thief]

So all these little micros on the back of road signs have permission from the council do they, or the ones on railways platforms have permission from Network Rail? All the ones on farmland have permission from the farmer? ...Who probably isn't even the landowner, just a tenant. I'm aware of caches in old mines and canal tunnels, now I know that there is no way permission would be granted for those.

 

The answer is shockingly NO ! I would hazard a guess that 95% of geocaches are placed without permission or knowledge of the landowner.

 

Some serious double standards going on here. Modern thinking I suppose, everything all wrapped in cotton wool, no risks allowed, everything wheelchair accessible and bring the brats along as well.

 

Oh for the good old days of letterboxing.

[Deceangi]

As the OP has no issues with the reasoning behind his initial post being made public, so that the community can fully understand where he is coming from.

 

The OP submitted a cache on Salisbury Plain, I on checking the cache location [Graculus being away on holiday] Disabled the cache with a request that he provides Proof of Permission for the Placement of the cache. Due to it being a designated SSSI. I also requested that a standard warning be posted to the cache page, as the area where the cache is located is a MOD Managed Access Area.

 

The OP disputed both facts, so I have presented proof of both to him.

 

 

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

[+Jaz666]

Our reviewers have always worked on the basis of "presumed permission"; you've checked the box that says you've agreed to the T&Cs, therefore it is assumed you've applied for the relevant permission.

 

There have always been certain sensitive areas, such as SSSIs, where our reviewers have asked for proof of permission, as any caches in these areas without permission risk tarnishing the image of the game/sport/obsession.

 

Now, I'm guessing the reason this thread was started is because in recent weeks our reviewers have been enforcing the "proof of permission" in SSSI areas more "noticeably" than before (well, a few occurances in my area anyway), and you've been caught out?

 

I don't think there's any hidden agenda here by Groundspeak or the reviewers, it's probably something a lot more simple.

Most likely the tools the reviewers have at their disposal when reviewing caches have been improved, and they are spotting more caches in these hotspots more often than before.

[+mongoose39uk]

Someone got a hidden agenda, feels like we ain't getting the full Jackanory here.

Seconded.

 

As the OP has no issues with the reasoning behind his initial post being made public, so that the community can fully understand where he is coming from.

 

The OP submitted a cache on Salisbury Plain, I on checking the cache location [Graculus being away on holiday] Disabled the cache with a request that he provides Proof of Permission for the Placement of the cache. Due to it being a designated SSSI. I also requested that a standard warning be posted to the cache page, as the area where the cache is located is a MOD Managed Access Area.

 

The OP disputed both facts, so I have presented proof of both to him.

 

 

 

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

 

So there was more to the story.........

 

just putting quotes in order

Edited August 26, 2009 by mongoose39uk

[Deceangi]

Our reviewers have always worked on the basis of "presumed permission"; you've checked the box that says you've agreed to the T&Cs, therefore it is assumed you've applied for the relevant permission.

 

There have always been certain sensitive areas, such as SSSIs, where our reviewers have asked for proof of permission, as any caches in these areas without permission risk tarnishing the image of the game/sport/obsession.

 

Now, I'm guessing the reason this thread was started is because in recent weeks our reviewers have been enforcing the "proof of permission" in SSSI areas more "noticeably" than before (well, a few occurances in my area anyway), and you've been caught out?

 

I don't think there's any hidden agenda here by Groundspeak or the reviewers, it's probably something a lot more simple.

Most likely the tools the reviewers have at their disposal when reviewing caches have been improved, and they are spotting more caches in these hotspots more often than before.

 

We are now using MAGIC-Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside. Interactive Maps which gives us a one stop resource for checking locations for SSSI/Local & National Nature Reserves/National Trust/Woodland Trust/FC/Scheduled Monuments/RSPB Reserves. As has been noticed, this means we are spotting more issues and actioning them. It's not been a case of getting tougher or more awkward, just the usage of a single tool has reduced the workload for us with the added affect that more checks providing more information are done on every cache submission.

 

Deci

[+martlakes]

The T&Cs use the great phrase "adequate permission". It's really a fudge and I believe that anyone who thinks most caches have explicit permission are deluding themselves. The GAGB guidelines have a similar phrase. The reviewers also talk about some areas needing explicit permission, implying that others don't. This is the happy 'elephant in the room' that's existed in geocaching for a long time, the 'open secret' that most caches haven't got permission. I disagree with the OPs style but recognise the sentiments.

 

Yes, all land is owned by someone. Yes, a cache with permission is always going to be better than one without. But the reality is that many caches don't have permission and the majority don't cause any problems because of it. If you hide well in an area normally frequented by the public, then it's unlikely to cause any harm or problems. Hide it in a stupid place and it will, and the reviewers have to sort out the mess.

 

The thing with SSSIs is that they are not small locations like ancient monuments. Many are huge areas. In 'the old days', it was hard to know where SSSIs were, and so they weren't much of a problem. The reviewers have now got the Govt's MAGIC map which shows all the SSSIs and so they are now becoming a 'hot topic'. When you look at the MAGIC map many of the caches on fells up in the Lakes turn out to be on SSSIs as they cover such large areas, which people weren't aware of before.

Natural England will soon be wondering why they are getting inundated with geocaching requests on SSSIs! (Of course you then have to ask the landowner as well!)

 

I think permission is going to become an increasingly tricky area for geocaching and Groundspeak. Try looking ahead 5yrs or 10. What will the 'sport' look like? If Groundspeak insist on explicit permission for every cache, some people will do the work needed, some will lie, some won't bother to place the cache, and some will go 'underground' to less restrictive sites. Will caches only be placed on land belonging to large landowners/councils/trusts etc who someone else has negotiated a system for placing, because few people can be bothered to track down an individual farmer or landowner and do the work needed to get permission. Trying to make geocaching more mainstream, increasing numbers, etc etc perhaps leads to less well thought out caches and more permission issues; therefore tighter rules and regs?

 

I'm all for getting permission and support the work individuals, GAGB and the reviewers do in this area. The reality, however, is more complicated than saying everyone's ticked the box so all caches have permission; yet insisting on explicit permission for every cache has a lot of consequences, good and bad. Perhaps it's time the reality of permission was openly discussed. (in a civilized way of course!)

 

My 10p

(PS. none of the above is a criticism of the reviewers in anyway)

[+t.a.folk]

 

The legal case could be the

 

"Hickman v.Maisy ,1900.Queens Bench "

 

 

Those sound like the blokes I was thinking of. I haven't looked at my college law notes for many, many years.

 

Regards,

 

Neil

 

Our info simply came from a paragraph from the 1962 edition of "The Shell Country Guide " under the heading of "The Grass Verge" in The Law and the Countryside section ".

 

Guess since 1962 many legalities about about tresspass ,passage ,footpaths photographs, mushrooms etc would have been amended ,or have they ?

[+Von-Horst]

 

Oh for the good old days of letterboxing.

 

Hmm. I'll bite.

 

From a letterboxing website;

 

"Care must be taken in both planting and finding letterboxes. While planting a letterbox, avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Do not hide a letterbox far off the trail where others will trample vegetation, flowers, or otherwise cause damage".

 

From the Dartmoor 100 club website;

 

"Letterboxes are not sited and you do not search for letterboxes:

...Where they will obviously disturb wildlife e.g. on a badger sett or close to nesting birds. ..In other ‘no-go’ areas as defined by the National Park Authority for the benefit of conservation. These areas may be updated from time to time so please check with the Dartmoor 100 Club for clarification. Information on ‘no-go’ areas is available at all National Park Information Centres."

 

Now admittedly these are voluntary guidelines (due to the nature of letterboxing), but isn't an SSSI an "environmentally sensitive area", or an "area...for the benefit of conservation" and therefore not somewhere suitable to hide a letterbox or geocache?

 

 

Mike

Edited August 27, 2009 by Von-Horst

[+Graculus]

One of the guidelines we use is this from the GAGB, "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)". We reviewers are not experts in the management of the countryside, nature reserves or SSSI's. We therefore cannot tell if a cache in such a location will 'risk damage'. The only people who can assess this risk are the rangers, wardens or land managers responsible for the area. If they are happy for the cache to be placed there it will be published. Therefore we ask that you get specific permission. This applies to all SSSI's or nature reserves irrespective of any other agreements that may be in place. An example is the New Forest. There is an excellent and clear agreement that the GAGB have concluded with the Forestry Commission for caches in the NF. Permission is agreed with them in advance*. But... if a cache is placed in a designated SSSI or nature reserve within the NF we will still ask for specific permission.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk/resources

 

*Please read the full agreement for precise details of cache placement in the NF.

[+Happy Humphrey]

This applies to all SSSI's or nature reserves irrespective of any other agreements that may be in place.

I don't intend to place one myself, but can you confirm that this applies on Dartmoor too, where (as we've had confirmed above) there is a "blanket" permission in force?

 

It may be that relentless permission requests start to cause annoyance, once the Dartmoor official has stated that no permission is necessary.

[+Team Noodles]

 

....

We are now using MAGIC-Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside. Interactive Maps which gives us a one stop resource for checking locations for SSSI/Local & National Nature Reserves/National Trust/Woodland Trust/FC/Scheduled Monuments/RSPB Reserves.

 

Deci

 

awesome link, will help me for future cache hides, thanks for that!

[+keehotee]

This applies to all SSSI's or nature reserves irrespective of any other agreements that may be in place.

I don't intend to place one myself, but can you confirm that this applies on Dartmoor too, where (as we've had confirmed above) there is a "blanket" permission in force?

 

It may be that relentless permission requests start to cause annoyance, once the Dartmoor official has stated that no permission is necessary.

 

The NPA's Letterboxing code already covers this -

... away from archaeologically and environmentally sensitive sites and "no go" areas.

Details of such sites are available at Information Centres across the park, as well as on MAGIC.

In addition, far from being a blanket agreement, the code only applies to areas not under private ownership - of which there are thousands of acres within Dartmoor National Park.

Edited August 27, 2009 by keehotee

[+Graculus]

This applies to all SSSI's or nature reserves irrespective of any other agreements that may be in place.

I don't intend to place one myself, but can you confirm that this applies on Dartmoor too, where (as we've had confirmed above) there is a "blanket" permission in force?

 

It may be that relentless permission requests start to cause annoyance, once the Dartmoor official has stated that no permission is necessary.

 

(my bold reference)

Yes, it is still a sensitive area and only the land manager can say whether damage would result if a cache was placed there. Dartmoor is not all SSSI's, in fact only a relatively small part of it is. If the Dartmoor authorities make a statement saying they are happy for caches to be placed ANYWHERE including SSSI's and reserves then we'd publish them without specific permission.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk/resources

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

... not really wishing to fan the flames here but ...

 

Oxygen Thief, I am wondering what your intentions might be now that you have disabled your caches due to no permission?

 

Will you be removing them, seeking permission or ...?

 

The reason I ask is that at least a couple of them have travellers in them.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

<snip> Modern thinking I suppose, everything all wrapped in cotton wool, no risks allowed, everything wheelchair accessible and bring the brats along as well.

 

</snip>

 

I'll bite on this, but I am sensing an answer that goes against your preconceptions will float on by anyways

 

Just for the record, I don't think you will find anyone in the community who is caching with any impairment who wishes that every cache was wheelchair accessible ... that's simply not what the game is about ... a good mix of caches to cater for a good mix of abilities, ages, preferences etc is perhaps what many hope for.

[nobby.nobbs]

SSSI's and similar are reasonably easy to get caches placed.

 

I've placed one in a Natural England and have negotiated with Hampshire Wildlife Trust for a blanket agreement. All they wanted was for the ranger/warden to be present when it was placed. That way they can be happy that it will not cause damage.

 

All that was required was a little bit of effort and being willing to explain the hobby.

 

Hampshire Trust are happy to offer a letter of recommendation to help further agreements.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Dartmoor is not all SSSI's, in fact only a relatively small part of it is.

Correct: see the map I linked to above.

If the Dartmoor authorities make a statement saying they are happy for caches to be placed ANYWHERE including SSSI's and reserves then we'd publish them without specific permission.

Isn't that what was confirmed above?

 

Obviously, just because an area is an SSSI it doesn't mean that public access for walkers (which is what geocachers are once they leave the road on foot) has to be a problem. It depends on the reason for the SSSI designation. I would say that in general, if there is unrestricted access then geocaches make no difference.

 

If the Dartmoor SSSI's are open to the public then the National Park representative is correct to allow the placing of caches anywhere under the same terms as letterboxes. As we know, the number of the latter dwarfs the numbers of caches and yet there's perceived to be no problem with them.

[+keehotee]

Dartmoor is not all SSSI's, in fact only a relatively small part of it is.

Correct: see the map I linked to above.

If the Dartmoor authorities make a statement saying they are happy for caches to be placed ANYWHERE including SSSI's and reserves then we'd publish them without specific permission.

Isn't that what was confirmed above?

 

 

No - the letterboxing code that the NPA have put together specifically excludes environmentally sensitive areas...such as SSSIs.

... away from archaeologically and environmentally sensitive sites and "no go" areas.

 

Rather than trying to pick holes in an "agreement" with one of the largest land managers in the south west, why can't you just accept that sometimes we have to fit our hobby into other peoples rules as well? And be thankful that Dartmoor NPA aren't as proscriptive as the New Forest?

Edited August 28, 2009 by keehotee