Jump to content

London Royal Parks - Geocaching refused


Recommended Posts

A gentle reminder......

 

In my original post I asked that those caches affected by the RP's decision not to allow caching in the parks should be archived and removed. I did not give a 'deadline'. I hoped people would be sensible about this and deal with the caches themselves. Many people have indeed done so and thank you to them for their quick response. There are some cache owners who have not responded to emails and looking at their profiles it may be they are no longer actively caching and so not aware of the issue. There are also some caches still active and in place owned by people who are aware of my request.

 

Wednesday 25th will be 10 days since my original post which I think is time enough for people to have dealt with the caches themselves. I shall be going through all the affected caches and if they have not been archived I will archive them myself. Please note that I did post in this thread that any multi/mystery caches that were archived may be unarchived if the owners want to move the containers out of the parks. The reviewers will be happy to do this subject to the new location meeting current guidelines.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Link to post

TINKERBELL has emailed about 250 people who have in some form signed the logs for the Peter Pan (London) cache.

 

Here are a few comments:

 

Can't sign the petition since I live in Canada, but will certainly send the card. The policy here about caching in national parks was just recently changed, so I am hopeful that the same will hold true in the UK.

 

Happy Christmas indeed!

 

Bill (SearchinSwifts)

 

Well, I have signed the petition, but it would appear that they don't

really want to hear from non-Commonwealth citizens. I selected

"expatriate" since I do not have a UK postal code. But a small skirmish

back 200+ years ago removed me from being a subject of the Crown. I

think I'd have to go back a dozen or so generations to make that claim

legitimate.

 

For what it's worth, during my visit to England last year, I made a

special trip to Hyde Park just to complete this cache. I would never

even have thought about visiting the park were it not for geocaching.

The same could be said for many other caches I've done over the years -

it takes you to places you would never have otherwise known about let

alone visited.

 

Peter "Grunriese"

New Jersey, USA

Hello Ian i was at goldpots event last week and lots of folk were fuming,me included,he works in regents park but the order came from on high,his boss does not know why this happened, you might know we have connections Pat is a Dame(dbe) and we have had corgis for 45 years so we will do our best with her nibs,i mean hrh. hope you are well,happy caching jeff=bones1.

 

I'm sure more comments will follow!

Link to post

Sorry folks. I will not sign the petition to the PM. I really do feel that my signature, if used, would be better used on more serious matters. A plastic box hidden in a bush just doesn't warrant it. Apologies.

Thats OK Kev - we love you anyway :)
Thanks Tink! I'll be mailing and add one of my custom made ornaments that I give out in my caches to draw attention to the card. :) All the best and happy Christmas!

 

Don aka "Fababoo"Markham, Ontario, CANADA

 

curses! I tried to sign the online petition but you must have a valid UK postal code. Do you think a postcard from the US would count for anything?

 

I have sent my email and card. I have also posted you email on the local Geocaching forums/boards

In order to get more geocachers involved even if they have not done the caches.

 

Best of Luck :santa: Gary F Rozecki

 

SHOCK! Tinkerbell, your caches are our favourites.... we are mailing our card from Canada this afternoon.

 

Blessings and gratitude, The Phantom Pipers

 

I'm sure there will be more

Link to post

One of my clients is Her Majesties official [and only] cameraman. He is currentely working with her on the Queens speech. Do you think I should ask him to have a word ?!!

Perhaps a request from 'up top' may do the trick - it could even be incorporated in her Christmas Day speech !

Working with him tommorow so any ideas need to be forthcoming asap !

:):)

P.S there are other parks in London with caches in them

Link to post

From the Royal Parks website:

 

http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/richmond_park/sport.cfm

 

"In season, the wooded areas and hill climbs in the Park offer unrivalled opportunities this close to Central London for orienteering and cross-country running."

 

Go figure!

 

I've suspect that in a lot of cases where permission has been refused, geocaching has been sold as a "hi-tech game of hide and seek", rather than something that sounds like a mature activity.

 

If orienteering is allowed in the parks then it make absolutely no sense that Geocaching is not.

Link to post

 

If orienteering is allowed in the parks then it make absolutely no sense that Geocaching is not.

 

But there is a crucial difference, isn't there?

 

Geocachers are leaving a physical container of some description in the park.

 

With "things" in it. :)

 

OK, you and I may know that bits of paper, a stray golf ball, a plastic Boglin, a rusty bulldog clip, a Fry's Turkish delight wrapper and a Ikea pencil do not pose much of a security risk, but that seems to be the main concern in this matter. Let's hope that if all cache owners act responsibly and remove their physical containers (as has been requested) then perhaps at some future date the matter may be discussed again... with a more positive outcome for geocaching in those parks.

 

MrsB

Link to post
:santa: I've just read all 3 pages of this topic and feel the need to have a big sigh :huh: ... There are great swathes of the US that are off limits, principally National Parks where just a few Earth and grandfathered Virtuals exist. ... Just live with it.

 

We come back to England in about a year. It'll be nice to cache back in the wet and green again!

We wondered where you'd gone - this green & pleasant land awaits.

 

Without question it is the precisely the refusal to embrace the Just live with it. philosophy that opened up swathes of the countryside, has kept public footpaths open, gave us the right to roam, defeated the crown in Richmond Park etc etc - the list is quite long.

 

No - I (and others I hope) will not just live it. We will challenge it, confront it, debate it and finally we hope - change it.

 

As usual in these forums, selective quoting, remarks taken out of context to suit one particular point of view. My full point was...

Just live with it. Re-assess in a few years perhaps, but there are many more things worth getting upset about.

 

Far too many people wanting to confrontational about the subject rather than 'softly softly, catchy monkey' or whatever the phrase is :P

In the 2 years before we came out here we managed 187 caches, in the 2 yrs since we got here we've gone at it fairly sedately, but we're now nearing 700. I'm going to miss driving gravel roads for 50 miles just to get a few caches, or caching at 10,000 ft, but we are looking forward to coming home.

Might even do some London Parks :):) I set myself a rule when I first joined in the forums that I should keep my posts below the total number of cache finds, thus keeping some balance, I did actually exceed that at one point, but I am now back in credit. Best I get out caching this week to increase the bank!

Link to post
As usual in these forums, selective quoting, remarks taken out of context to suit one particular point of view. My full point was...

Just live with it. Re-assess in a few years perhaps, but there are many more things worth getting upset about.Far too many people wanting to confrontational about the subject rather than 'softly softly, catchy monkey' or whatever the phrase is :)

I wan't misled at all by his quoting.

 

Signing a petition and sending a Christmas card ARE "softly softly". Confrontational would be continuing to set caches in defiance of the ban.

 

As for "there are many more things worth getting upset about", you are free to get upset about those too, if you wish.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to post
I've suspect that in a lot of cases where permission has been refused, geocaching has been sold as a "hi-tech game of hide and seek", rather than something that sounds like a mature activity.

I've commented previously (aka, "this post I'm writing right now is spam") that the name "Geocaching" is sometimes rather unfortunate when talking to the kind of person - that's about 80% of the population - who isn't really listening to what you're saying.

 

It's a word that sounds like it's trying to be cool. When you hear it, you can't immediately imagine the spelling. The "Geeeeoooohhhh" part sounds like a motorbike accelerating. "caching" sounds like "smashing" or "crashing" (unless you're Australian and pronounce it "cayshing"). Within 0.5 seconds of hearing it, people are making associations with "tombstoning" and "base jumping" and "Jackass" and other dangerous stuff like that. Extreme sports. Anarchy. Write to my MP. Daily Mail web site. That kind of thing. No no, don't bother, I've stopped listening now, you can't do this in my park. You might frighten the children.

Link to post

Within 0.5 seconds of hearing it, people are making associations with "tombstoning" and "base jumping" and "Jackass" and other dangerous stuff like that. Extreme sports. Anarchy. Write to my MP. Daily Mail web site. That kind of thing. No no, don't bother, I've stopped listening now, you can't do this in my park. You might frighten the children.

 

If only........... :huh::P

 

Doesn't this post belong in the "things aint what they used to be" thread :):):santa:

Link to post
I've suspect that in a lot of cases where permission has been refused, geocaching has been sold as a "hi-tech game of hide and seek", rather than something that sounds like a mature activity.

I've commented previously (aka, "this post I'm writing right now is spam") that the name "Geocaching" is sometimes rather unfortunate when talking to the kind of person - that's about 80% of the population - who isn't really listening to what you're saying.

 

It's a word that sounds like it's trying to be cool. When you hear it, you can't immediately imagine the spelling. The "Geeeeoooohhhh" part sounds like a motorbike accelerating. "caching" sounds like "smashing" or "crashing" (unless you're Australian and pronounce it "cayshing"). Within 0.5 seconds of hearing it, people are making associations with "tombstoning" and "base jumping" and "Jackass" and other dangerous stuff like that. Extreme sports. Anarchy. Write to my MP. Daily Mail web site. That kind of thing. No no, don't bother, I've stopped listening now, you can't do this in my park. You might frighten the children.

 

Suddenly I have this idea of basejumpcaching in my head. Caches suspended by string or other contraption in mid-air whilst you have to basejump down and grab it whilst ejecting your parachute.

 

:)

 

Sorry totally OT I know.

Link to post

Ive been off line for a few days and look what happens! Anyway, for clarification, the term 'Royal Parks' needs to be used with care as the discussion here should only refer to the London based Royal Parks (as indicated in the topic title and the initial post) that are managed by Royal Parks Management and not all the Royal Parks in the UK.

 

The Royal Parks in Scotland (there are two:- Holyrood and Linlithgow) and managed differently as I believe is the Royal Park at Windsor which is managed by The Crown Estate. From what I can see the caches in these locations should therefore remain unaffected?

Edited by Big Wolf
Link to post

Chris has deleted the following two logs from the Peter Pan (London). IMHO the bad old days are on the way back. This really has to stop.

 

TINKERBELL HAS BAD NEWS

Tinkerbell has been informed that Hook and the Crocodile have teamed up in the form of the Royal Parks agency to ban geocaching. Tinkerbell has very strong views indeed on grown ups who upset children and has gone back to 'magic school' to find a useful 'spell' which will work with her sparky wand.

 

Tinkerbell suggests that you might like to send the Royal Parks a Christmas Card to protest and how they are treating little children at Christmas.

 

In the meantime Tinkerbell is trying to find a way round the nasty nasty nasty Royal Parks. She thinks this typical of grown ups, and particularly upsetting in her anniversary year. Tinkerbell has updated here Christmas Card offerings to include a Word DOC format file as well. It will fit into an A5 page layout she has been told by the IT fairies.

Link to post

Chris has deleted the following two logs from the Peter Pan (London). IMHO the bad old days are on the way back. This really has to stop.

 

You are not helping matters with your continuous disregard for both the wishes of the Royal Parks and our volunteer reviewers. This really has to stop.

Link to post

Chris has deleted the following two logs from the Peter Pan (London). IMHO the bad old days are on the way back. This really has to stop.

As I said on SE Cachers, where you also posted this, if that log was brought to the attention of the Royal Parks management it would likely have the opposite effect to what you and most of the rest of us would like to see happen. You are reacting with your heart, and Chris with his head. No offence intended, but in this case I think Chris is right.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to post

Chris has deleted the following two logs from the Peter Pan (London). IMHO the bad old days are on the way back. This really has to stop.

 

You are not helping matters with your continuous disregard for both the wishes of the Royal Parks and our volunteer reviewers. This really has to stop.

 

Although the description of cachers as "little children" would fit in with some of the comments made on this thread!

Link to post

Sorry but I believe people might find this post on GAGB interesting

 

GAGB Post by kewfriend

 

Dave

 

He's not trying to make any friends, is he!

 

kewfriend, while you're at it, do you think you could mention in your letter to Herts council that some areas near a couple of my caches really need cleaning up.

 

For example, I have one offset multi, but if people put in the wrong coords it could take them to the wrong place - a sorely neglected area by the council.

 

Also, I've noticed that some roads have developed potholes which have not been repaired. Watford council are normally good about this, but I know others that seem to treat potholes as natural forming speed bumps (I'm looking at you Warwickshire).

 

Then there's the neighbours in our block of flats that like to party late into the night with loud music, no cares about people who have to work in the morning or families with young children.

 

Could you mention these things too when you right to my council, I figured since you have the time and money... :laughing::laughing:

Link to post

Sorry but I believe people might find this post on GAGB interesting

 

GAGB Post by kewfriend

 

Dave

 

I thought this hobby, game or sport was fun and about getting out looking for caches and enjoying the area that they are placed. :laughing:

 

I have been reading this forum with interest and I am sorry but I think Kewfriend needs to get out and enjoy what the hobby, game or sport is about. While I feel very sorry for anyone with a cache in the Royal London Parks and for Kewfriend with one cache which has taken so much work and time to put together but its even more depressing to keep reading the infighting and muck throwing that is on this forum which just continues to put geocaching in a bad light to any new person who may take up the hobby, game or sport that logs onto the forums to seek help or advice and reads these logs.

 

Can we not move on, put out some new interesting caches? Don't let the b**t**ds get us down.

 

Personally I think the reviewers do a good job and just think how many caches would be out there without their continued help and hard work.

 

Is it not time to put this to bed, thats where I am going now.

 

Yorkie30 :laughing:

Link to post

If the cache was attached to a railing that forms the perimeter/boundary of the park then surely that railing must belong to the park and therefore come under the terms of their ban.

I fail to see what the intended action has anything to gain other than the ruination of a hobby that thousands enjoy in this country.

In my own personal opinion, an over zealous reaction.

Link to post

A night's rest is a wonderful think.

 

Those who know me well understand several things.

 

a ) I always play with a straight bat [ every cache - and thats the vast majority cf Iona - I had ever set had had explicit permission except where as in the RP permission had been assumed.]

b ) I always resist bullying - and short term popularity so I can 'play' with a bully is of no interest to me

c ) If I say something will happen - then it will. Jibes about toys and prams are ignored.

 

Geocaching has always operated in a hazy arena. Basically unless a cache explicitly runs counter to the overall guidelines, then unless a cache is explicitly identified as being in the 'wrong' place then it has been allowed. The issue is that most organisations and landowners (national and local) are unaware of what is happening on their land. Given that the UK Reviewer is now operating a policy of explicit permission and seeking documentary proof of ownership and permission I am completely prepared after the weekend to assist him in taking that to its logical conclusion. For instance AFIIK the BWB is unaware of any cache on any UK waterway. Well we could explore how they feel about that - and if they grant overall permission then everyone is a winner.

 

I have indeed archived all my caches including all those where explicit permission was granted and those on my own land. I will be delighted if those caches are visited to collect any TBs, coins etc. If sense prevails then they can be (with Reviewer assent) unarchived.

 

Is there a compromise position? Yes there is - because like all of us I rather like the 'hazy' air in which we operate. Its fun.

 

I have made public on GAGB the coordinates of PP on the Bayswater Road. I invite any concerned geocacher to go visit and comment. Speculating on legal 'ownership' is not what I seek but a simple comment on whether the cache can in any sensible sense be considered as cacheing within the Royal Parks. IMHO the 'hazy' world can return and PP can live again.

Link to post

In all your time caching have you made any friends? Now is the time to think of them, instead of yourself.

 

I don't know but I suspect, based on the evidence of your posts here, that this has happened because you are approaching the matter in an aggressive, confrontational manner. A reviewer has to form an opinion of the cache and its location. If a correspondent is calm, helpful and reasonable they are more likely to be able to form an accurate opinion than if their respondent is aggressive.

 

You and I, and most others here, have the same aim - to get caching restored in the Royal Parks. I support the petition, and I support sending thousands of polite and friendly Christmas Cards to the Royal Parks management.

 

Is that still your aim, or has your aim now changed to destroying caching in the UK as far as it is within the power of one person with time and money on his hands to do? Your proposed action most certainly will not further the cause of caching in the Royal Parks, it is just a selfish, spiteful and vindictive reaction :unsure: .

 

Please, Ian, try to live up to your caching name and that of fewkinder.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to post

Wednesday 25th will be 10 days since my original post which I think is time enough for people to have dealt with the caches themselves. I shall be going through all the affected caches and if they have not been archived I will archive them myself.

Whilst archiving the caches early is probably unavoidable, (I guess that the RP people have an issue with people looking for caches, not the caches themselves as they are invisible), I'd advise caution when dealing with cache owners after only giving 10 days notice (a very short period indeed). A lot of tact will be needed so as not to cause offence.

 

I'm not surprised that several have not yet responded, and once the caches are archived I expect that most of them will simply be abandoned. Again, not a problem, although once archived they have actually been made illegal for the first time as they are then litter (whilst the listing is current it's easy to argue that the caches are being monitored and therefore not litter). But bearing in mind the tiny proportion of the parks litter that represents, I hardly think that it will cause a problem.

Link to post

Wednesday 25th will be 10 days since my original post which I think is time enough for people to have dealt with the caches themselves. I shall be going through all the affected caches and if they have not been archived I will archive them myself.

Whilst archiving the caches early is probably unavoidable, (I guess that the RP people have an issue with people looking for caches, not the caches themselves as they are invisible), I'd advise caution when dealing with cache owners after only giving 10 days notice (a very short period indeed). A lot of tact will be needed so as not to cause offence.

 

I'm not surprised that several have not yet responded, and once the caches are archived I expect that most of them will simply be abandoned. Again, not a problem, although once archived they have actually been made illegal for the first time as they are then litter (whilst the listing is current it's easy to argue that the caches are being monitored and therefore not litter). But bearing in mind the tiny proportion of the parks litter that represents, I hardly think that it will cause a problem.

 

I originally asked in my first post that the caches were archived and removed to comply with the wishes of the Royal Parks. I also sent out emails to those cache owners affected. From checking the caches I knew there were some owners who appeared not to have logged in for a while so would probably not respond. I also realised people would not be able to collect the containers immediatley. However archiving the cache listings does not require a visit to the cache location. The majority of cache owners responded either directly to me via email or posted in the thread within a day or two and archived the caches as asked (reluctantly and I understand their feelings). Unfortunately some people who were aware of the archive request did not do it, instead keeping the caches active (they were not even disabled and people have been finding them). I let 10 days go past as a reasonable time for people to take the necessary responsible action to archive the caches themselves. When they didn't I archived them. I've contacted the owners and said that if they want to re-locate them they can be unarchived. I also made this clear in an earlier post in this thread.

I think that my initial request that owners archive the caches and giving them time to do this is perfectly reasonable. After all, I could have just archived them all on day 1 myself.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Link to post

 

I have made public on GAGB the coordinates of PP on the Bayswater Road. I invite any concerned geocacher to go visit and comment. Speculating on legal 'ownership' is not what I seek but a simple comment on whether the cache can in any sensible sense be considered as cacheing within the Royal Parks. IMHO the 'hazy' world can return and PP can live again.[/size]

 

Having looked at both Google Maps and Google Earth, the coordinates appear to be in the middle of the road junction between Bayswater Road and Leinster Terrace...which doesn't really help.

 

You stated that the micro was attached to a railing - would that be a railing along the edge of the Royal Park, and therefore within the area the RPA have banned caching? That would be my conclusion based on the information you have given. If that is the case, then the reviewer would have had no choice but to disable the cache.

 

I have indeed archived all my caches...I will be delighted if those caches are visited to collect any TBs, coins etc.

 

You archived all your caches with no notice in a fit of pique. You should have the decency to do this, especially since you will presumably be spending the weekend collecting in all your caches...

 

 

It is a shame that a well known and respected cacher like yourself should have chosen to take out your frustration with the Royal Parks situation by making offensive comments about one of the reviewers.

 

It is tragic that you now seem intent on alienating and threatening everyone for no real reason that I can see, other than a desire to spread the hurt and anger you are currently feeling.

 

I hope that someone else can take on the mantle of Tinkerbell so that the Peter Pan series can continue.

 

I hope things change once you have properly calmed down and wish you all the best,

 

Mike

Link to post

...I let 10 days go past as a reasonable time for people to take the necessary responsible action to archive the caches themselves. When they didn't I archived them. I've contacted the owners and said that if they want to re-locate them they can be unarchived.

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for clarifying (again)!

Link to post

 

I have indeed archived all my caches including all those where explicit permission was granted and those on my own land. I will be delighted if those caches are visited to collect any TBs, coins etc.

 

How are people supposed to visit them now they're archived and therefore aren't listed?

Link to post

 

I have indeed archived all my caches including all those where explicit permission was granted and those on my own land. I will be delighted if those caches are visited to collect any TBs, coins etc.

 

How are people supposed to visit them now they're archived and therefore aren't listed?

Enter the waypoint (GC number) into the g.com search engine. The cache page will magically appear for your perusal. Print it off or write down the co-ordinates and off you jolly well go. Upon your return, you can log it as usual, even though it's officially archived.

That's the problem.... the reviewers have the POWER... they can archive caches at the press of a button but do the actual caches disappear in a puff of smoke. No, I think they do not. They stay exactly where they are until someone, a Royal Parks gardener perhaps, stumbles across a damp, mouldy box of rusting trinkets proudly proclaiming that it's a geocache. Oh horror, a cache has been placed in a Royal Park and that's against the law!

Link to post

They stay exactly where they are until someone, a Royal Parks gardener perhaps, stumbles across a damp, mouldy box of rusting trinkets proudly proclaiming that it's a geocache. Oh horror, a cache has been placed in a Royal Park and that's against the law!

All the ones I've done in the parks (admittedly not many) have been micros, and there have been bigger "containers" lying around nearby (by the dozen). So it's quite understandable if people don't bother picking them up. I doubt that the Royal Parks staff will ever find them all, even if they're looking out for them.

And I know you're only kidding, but of course it's not against the law...it's just against the rules to have caches listed.

Link to post

Following the ban I contacted the CEO of the ROyal PArks via EMail and have today recieved this reply:

<quote>

Dear Mr Mullans

 

Thank you for your email to Mark Camley. I can understand your disappointment that we do not allow geocaching in the Royal Parks. This is a longstanding policy and is not, as you imply, a new restriction. There are security and environmental reasons why we maintain this. This agency does not hold details of the number of stop and searches that have taken place relating to this activity, as enforcement issues are a matter for the police. However the police fully support the policy and agree that to allow geocaching in the estate could present security risks and resource pressures.

 

You mention Richmond and Bushy Parks. Richmond Park is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve and as a European Special Area of Conservation. Burying a cache in the Park is actually an offence both under the Royal Parks Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Earlier this year park staff discovered a large geocache which had been left at the base of a veteran oak tree. Whilst the person who put it there probably thought they were doing no harm, disturbance to this sensitive habitat is not acceptable. We are seeking similar protective SSSI designation for Bushy Park.

 

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write and I am sorry that I am unable to give you a more positive reply.

<end of quote>

 

So all in all it is not looking good for Bushy Park in the future.

Link to post

ROYAL PARKS PETITION

 

Don't forget to click on the Petition confirmation link in the email that will be sent you.

I have signed the petition and clicked on the confirmation but my real name Michael Franks is not appearing on the petition page and the numbers of signed has not increased. Has any one else had this problem?

Link to post

ROYAL PARKS PETITION

 

Don't forget to click on the Petition confirmation link in the email that will be sent you.

I have signed the petition and clicked on the confirmation but my real name Michael Franks is not appearing on the petition page and the numbers of signed has not increased. Has any one else had this problem?

 

It doesn't seem to instantly update. Be patient.

Link to post
I have signed the petition and clicked on the confirmation but my real name Michael Franks is not appearing on the petition page and the numbers of signed has not increased. Has any one else had this problem?
The page doesn't seem to update properly, but your signature almost certainly has been registered.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to post

Following the ban I contacted the CEO of the ROyal PArks via EMail and have today recieved this reply:

<quote>

Dear Mr Mullans

 

Thank you for your email to Mark Camley. I can understand your disappointment that we do not allow geocaching in the Royal Parks. This is a longstanding policy and is not, as you imply, a new restriction. There are security and environmental reasons why we maintain this. This agency does not hold details of the number of stop and searches that have taken place relating to this activity, as enforcement issues are a matter for the police. However the police fully support the policy and agree that to allow geocaching in the estate could present security risks and resource pressures.

 

You mention Richmond and Bushy Parks. Richmond Park is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve and as a European Special Area of Conservation. Burying a cache in the Park is actually an offence both under the Royal Parks Regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Earlier this year park staff discovered a large geocache which had been left at the base of a veteran oak tree. Whilst the person who put it there probably thought they were doing no harm, disturbance to this sensitive habitat is not acceptable. We are seeking similar protective SSSI designation for Bushy Park.

 

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write and I am sorry that I am unable to give you a more positive reply.

<end of quote>

 

So all in all it is not looking good for Bushy Park in the future.

 

Thanks for sharing that email DD&V

 

I've had time to reflect on the current situation.

If one sits back and thinks about the situation, one can barely complain about the "supposed" injustice of not being able to hide a cache in designated SSSI spaces.

It's no different than similar bans in some of the USA's great parks.

Caching will survive the loss of a few such caches.

Personally I will probably now not have a reason for visiting these areas, (although I see Richmond has a few new caches outside the park) as my weekends are spent a-hunting plastic boxes.

But England/Britain is a large space and I doubt I could grab all the caches in green areas in my lifetime.

 

PS....now I know why I never found that cache at the base of that oak tree! :unsure:

Link to post

Re. The up-dating total of signatures on the petition: If you saved the email you received with the "confirmation" link in it, go back to it and click on that confirmation link again and you will see the number of signatures steadily increasing. (Currently showing 235)

 

MrsB

Link to post

 

Enter the waypoint (GC number) into the g.com search engine. The cache page will magically appear for your perusal. Print it off or write down the co-ordinates and off you jolly well go. Upon your return, you can log it as usual, even though it's officially archived.

 

 

Yes, but that's a catch 22 situation. Howam supposed to knwo that number if I've never found it and it's now off teh system? It relies heavily on cachers who have previously found the cache (1) reading this thread and (2) caring enough to go and revisit a cache that they've already found jsut to pick up a TB. Surely it's the owner's responsibility to clear up the geolitter and rescue any stranded bugs, rather than just assuming the caching community will do it for him?

Link to post

Surely it's the owner's responsibility to clear up the geolitter and rescue any stranded bugs, rather than just assuming the caching community will do it for him?

Absolutely... I couldn't agree more. :P If it's the cache owner that archives his/her cache, for whatever reason, it certainly wouldn't be too much to expect them to do just that but I know with some certainty that there are cache owners that have archived a cache and just couldn't be bothered to go a collect it. However, if their cache is archived by a reviewer in somewhat less than pleasant circumstances, I wouldn't be too surprised if an attitude of 'You archived it, you go and get it' prevailed. I'd be a little disappointed, but not surprised :unsure:

Link to post

 

Enter the waypoint (GC number) into the g.com search engine. The cache page will magically appear for your perusal. Print it off or write down the co-ordinates and off you jolly well go. Upon your return, you can log it as usual, even though it's officially archived.

 

 

Yes, but that's a catch 22 situation. Howam supposed to knwo that number if I've never found it and it's now off teh system? It relies heavily on cachers who have previously found the cache (1) reading this thread and (2) caring enough to go and revisit a cache that they've already found jsut to pick up a TB. Surely it's the owner's responsibility to clear up the geolitter and rescue any stranded bugs, rather than just assuming the caching community will do it for him?

If you go to any cacher's profile page and click on the "Geocaches" tab you can see a listing of all caches found (on the left) or hidden (on the right), including archived caches.

Link to post

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...
×
×
  • Create New...