London Royal Parks - Geocaching refused

[+Bear and Ragged]

The GAGB guidelines:

 

3. No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

 

Doesn't say "Such sites are unsuitable for this activity."

 

[Pajaholic]

The Geocaching Association of Great Britain has guidelines which acknowledge that such sites are unsuitable for this activity.

Hopefully the GAGB will be absolutely incensed by the cheek of the Government using GAGB guidelines against geocachers, and will immediately put them right on this outrageous statement.

 

Although I might wait until a few pigs have flown past before checking whether the GAGB bothered...!

AIUI, the GAGB guidelines say no such thing. UK reviewers might require specific permission for SSSIs and NNRs, and the guidelines might urge care, but that's not the same as what the Government claim. For that, some SSSIs and NNRs are among the most suitable locations for Geocaching (e.g. those on Dartmoor). So it would seem that the Government are being somewhat economical with the truth.

 

Geoff

[+The Book Of Shadows]

The Geocaching Association of Great Britain has guidelines which acknowledge that such sites are unsuitable for this activity.

Hopefully the GAGB will be absolutely incensed by the cheek of the Government using GAGB guidelines against geocachers, and will immediately put them right on this outrageous statement.

 

Although I might wait until a few pigs have flown past before checking whether the GAGB bothered...!

AIUI, the GAGB guidelines say no such thing. UK reviewers might require specific permission for SSSIs and NNRs, and the guidelines might urge care, but that's not the same as what the Government claim. For that, some SSSIs and NNRs are among the most suitable locations for Geocaching (e.g. those on Dartmoor). So it would seem that the Government are being somewhat economical with the truth.

 

Geoff

 

Shock horror a goverment economical with the truth.

[+Happy Humphrey]

IMO the wording of the GAGB guideline has always been open to such interpretation, even though it doesn't really mean what it might appear to say.

 

But my point was that it's now been used to beat us with a stick, and it's up to the GAGB to make sure that the inaccurate statement on the Government website is corrected immediately. I would hope that the guideline is then reworded to make the actual situation clear.

[+drdick&vick]

For what good it will do, I have just emailed the PM's office and quoted the relevant Guideline and asked for the statement to be corrected.

Watch out for the low flying pigs heading in your direction

[+Happy Humphrey]

I take back my "flying pigs" comment!

[team tisri]

How about "We, the undersigned, wish the government would at least get its basic facts right before rejecting petitions"?

[+Happy Humphrey]

How about "We, the undersigned, wish the government would at least get its basic facts right before rejecting petitions"?

To be fair to them, the guideline is;

3. No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

.

This looks like a straightforward ban on any cache in a SSSI or SAM. As a hypothetical example, you place a cache in bushes on your local golf course (with permission), which also happens to be in a SSSI. Cachers rummaging around will certainly "risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest", even though this is nothing compared to the disturbance caused by the golf course and golfers. The golf course is fine anyway (as is the cache) as it doesn't compromise the scientists' studies.

 

Nevertheless, it appears that this cache would simply not be allowed by the GAGB guideline, and it seems fair enough to look no further when you encounter such a black-and-white statement on a seemingly authoritative website.

[+t.a.folk]

If even just one muggle's money is not wasted on one more police callout to a caching incident in the London Royal Parks the refusal gets our vote of aprooval .Dare we say that here? Ooops! just have .

[+Happy Humphrey]

Uh? Explain!

[team tisri]

If even just one muggle's money is not wasted on one more police callout to a caching incident in the London Royal Parks the refusal gets our vote of aprooval .Dare we say that here? Ooops! just have .

 

So by the same logic if one muggle's money is not wasted on one more police callout to a caching incident anywhere in the country then a total lack of geocaches anywhere is a good thing?

 

Alternatively perhaps people could get a sense of perspective and stop looking for terrorists and threats around every corner. At present terrorists don't need to even plan an attack - we are so busy dismantling our own freedoms they don't even need to do it for us.

[+t.a.folk]

Uh? Explain!

It's so obvious to us ,we cannot hope to understand what you don't understand.

Do not intend to say more .

[+Happy Humphrey]

Uh? Explain!

It's so obvious to us ,we cannot hope to understand what you don't understand.

Do not intend to say more .

I was simply thinking what team tisri said. So if I take your post on face value it doesn't make sense, due to the obvious logical flaw. Hence the bafflement.

[+Amberel]

Uh? Explain!

It's so obvious to us ,we cannot hope to understand what you don't understand.

Do not intend to say more .

You statement doesn't make any sense to me either, unless you mean you think that geocaching should be banned everywhere? Most of the areas covered by the Royal Parks are no more security sensitive than anywhere else, indeed, the vast majority is probably less sensitive than the average.

 

Rgds, Andy

[Pajaholic]

I wonder whether t.a.folk forgot to use irony tags? ...

 

... as in "<fe>perhaps the government should also ban shoes to avoid the possibility of terrorist shoe-bombers!</fe>"

[nobby.nobbs]

There is a plan to amend the wording of this guideline so as to make it more difficult for anyone to deliberately misinterpretation it. Also plans to try and arrange a face to face meeting. We can only do so much when faced with such deliberate ignorance.

Edited August 4, 2010 by nobby.nobbs

[nobby.nobbs]

Sorry. Misinterpret. Big fingers and mobile phone touch screens are not a good combination

[+currykev]

Why not change it to...

The GAGB guidelines:

 

3. No cache shall be placed on any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

 

Job done!

[Pajaholic]

Why not change it to...

The GAGB guidelines:

 

3. No cache shall be placed on any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

 

Job done!

Because that's exactly the misrepresentation that GAGB is trying to avoid?

[Deceangi]

Why not change it to...

The GAGB guidelines:

 

3. No cache shall be placed on any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

 

Job done!

 

Why? My colleagues and I regularly publish caches in SSSI's with Landowner Permission and approval off one of the 3 Designating Authorities [they can only give permission for Land they actually own, all other areas they give approval for]

 

Given that Natural England is a Executive Department of the Government [the same as the Royal Parks], it seems the Government have been given false information! Given the actual wording of their reply, I believe the source of that information is obvious!

 

Personally I have owned a cache in a SSSI for 6 years. That took me getting Permission off the Landowner [with the aid of the Land Manager who's a contractor], the Approval of CCW after a Site Inspection. And Approval of the Land Management Steering Group for the area [The Landowner, CCW, Flintshire CC, RSPB. The Environment Agency (another Executive Department of the Government) Haven Leisure Group]

 

Deci

[+currykev]

Why not change it to...

The GAGB guidelines:

 

3. No cache shall be placed on any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

 

Job done!

 

Personally I have owned a cache in a SSSI for 6 years. That took me getting Permission off the Landowner [with the aid of the Land Manager who's a contractor], the Approval of CCW after a Site Inspection. And Approval of the Land Management Steering Group for the area [The Landowner, CCW, Flintshire CC, RSPB. The Environment Agency (another Executive Department of the Government) Haven Leisure Group]

 

Deci

 

Exactly!

Don't allow them and you'd save yourself weeks of paperwork.

 

 

PS..edited to add.

Maybe that's what GAGB exists for. Maybe GAGB is a quango that exists for it's own sake.

Maybe GAGB should rethink it's role and reason for being!

Edited August 4, 2010 by currykev

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

If even just one muggle's money is not wasted on one more police callout to a caching incident in the London Royal Parks the refusal gets our vote of aprooval .Dare we say that here? Ooops! just have .

 

One more? How many have there been, exactly?

 

Whatever the number, put that against muggle police call outs for other (far more sensitive) areas ...

 

I'm sorry, but your comments simply do not make sense.

[+currykev]

Just wondering if there is an update on the supposed negotiations between GAGB and the fuzz.

Or is that it?

[Deceangi]

Just wondering if there is an update on the supposed negotiations between GAGB and the fuzz.

Or is that it?

 

Ermm the actual negotiations where not with the "fuzz" (Police) as you put it. But with the Senior Management at the Royal Parks. A member of the Royal Parks Police Department (part of the Metropolitan Police Service) attended the negotiations at the request of the Royal Parks Senior Management.

 

The next stage will be to take the negotiations to Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport who is the Senior Minister for the Department for Culture Media and Sport. The Royal Parks Agency being a executive agency belonging to DCMS.

 

Another approach is to bide our time, and re-open negotiations when the Senior Management at the Royal Parks has changed. It took 4 years of patience and Community support, for the NW FC requirement for a payment of a £50 fee for a 3 year permission to place licence to place to be dropped.

 

The situation with the Royal Parks Ban is exactly the same, it will take patience to achieve the result the Community wishes to see.

 

Deci

[+currykev]

Thanks for the update.

[+bevema]

The situation with the Royal Parks Ban is exactly the same, it will take patience to achieve the result the Community wishes to see.

 

Deci

I've recently booked 4 days in London in August, showing this great city to my daugther (11 yrs) for her first time. As I heard the rumors about former micros every miles 1/8s in the parks, I wondered why the geocache mapshows no caches there anymore.

 

Thx for the info, and I keep my fingers crossed for successfully biding the cachers time!