NETWORK RAIL

[+saddler21]

This is amusing. I actually know someone who works at the NR HQ at Euston in a very relevant department and I'm seeing what I can dig up.

She's quite bemused as to why one of the Comms Execs is giving the generic customer service number out to people on his email sig though. There's no way to be put through to the NRHQ from that number, and everyone at that office has an DD 0207 number. The name rings no bells with her, which is funny, as she's a Manager in the Comms Department, and it's really not that big.

 

Just food for thought. Or Cache for questions, depending on how you look at it.

Edited January 17, 2010 by saddler21

[+natterjacktoad]

This is amusing. I actually know someone who works at the NR HQ at Euston in a very relevant department and I'm seeing what I can dig up.

She's quite bemused as to why one of the Comms Execs is giving the generic customer service number out to people on his email sig though. There's no way to be put through to the NRHQ from that number, and everyone at that office has an DD 0207 number. The name rings no bells with her, which is funny, as she's a Manager in the Comms Department, and it's really not that big.

 

Just food for thought. Or Cache for questions, depending on how you look at it.

 

Thanks for a very informative post saddler21 - we will await further news from you with interest.

[kiteflyer]

Dont post much on here, so here goes,.....

I don't see what the problem is here if we have all followed the rules. All land belongs to someone I believe, and all cache placements must have permission Now of course if you have not gained the permission but ticked the box to say that you have, then the reviewer cannot be to blame surely?

 

So all sidetracked caches are safe then as we all followed the rules yeah right, thats why this problem has occured.

 

I don't know the history of Kewfriends other topics so you can all tell me to "go away you don't know what your talking about" but do feel that we as cache setters take alot of pressure of our great review team by following the rules.

 

Now runs off back down hole for a few years

 

Gary

[+keehotee]

Dont post much on here, so here goes,.....

I don't see what the problem is here if we have all followed the rules. All land belongs to someone I believe, and all cache placements must have permission Now of course if you have not gained the permission but ticked the box to say that you have, then the reviewer cannot be to blame surely?

 

 

Semantics I know - but I've only ever ticked the box that says I have adequate permission - not that my cache has permission - and AFAIK there's no guideline to tell me how much permission is adequate unless it's on an SSSI or any other area where cache placement is subject to specific rues or restrictions.

[+The Klever Boys]

This is amusing. I actually know someone who works at the NR HQ at Euston in a very relevant department and I'm seeing what I can dig up.

She's quite bemused as to why one of the Comms Execs is giving the generic customer service number out to people on his email sig though. There's no way to be put through to the NRHQ from that number, and everyone at that office has an DD 0207 number. The name rings no bells with her, which is funny, as she's a Manager in the Comms Department, and it's really not that big.

 

This guy exists. Trust me

[+Haggis Hunter]

I still think that people are jumping to conclusions. Saying that a person on this forum should grow up and deserves no respect is a direct attack. Some of these comments are even hypocritical as certain people have been known to really throw their dummies out of the pram and have the whole of the UK forum up in arms in the past.

 

In the past I have been in the exact predicament that Kewfriend finds himself in now. I done the right thing and went to Historic Scotland for permission, in doing that I was questioned about a certain cache, that ended up with that cache getting archived. I received a lot of abuse* on a forum that I didn't frequent and therefore could not defend myself on. I was informed about 3 months later and it was then that I commented on it on the GeoX forum which I frequent daily. It wasn't until then that a reviewer could openly state their thanks to me, for what was an ugly and nasty situation.

 

So my point is LAY OFF!! What you are doing is dam.n well nasty, and I know if it was happening to any of you, you would be looking for whatever support you could get, and hoping the Mods would put a stop to it!!

 

 

* I mean abuse, I was called all sorts of four letter words and other derogatory things that should never be allowed on a forum.

[+HouseOfDragons]

 

My apology is on record and all previous caches etc have indeed been archived, including a sidetracked. One seeks to re-establish a sidetracked, one communicates with the appropriate authority and one receives a reply - not necessarily the reply one wished. One publishes the reply.

 

Given that all the caches were archived in petulance, why would you seek to reinstate a sidetracked one and why would you be asking permission which, surely, you had when the cache was originally listed? If not to cause trouble?

[+natterjacktoad]

I still think that people are jumping to conclusions. Saying that a person on this forum should grow up and deserves no respect is a direct attack. Some of these comments are even hypocritical as certain people have been known to really throw their dummies out of the pram and have the whole of the UK forum up in arms in the past.

 

In the past I have been in the exact predicament that Kewfriend finds himself in now. I done the right thing and went to Historic Scotland for permission, in doing that I was questioned about a certain cache, that ended up with that cache getting archived. I received a lot of abuse* on a forum that I didn't frequent and therefore could not defend myself on. I was informed about 3 months later and it was then that I commented on it on the GeoX forum which I frequent daily. It wasn't until then that a reviewer could openly state their thanks to me, for what was an ugly and nasty situation.

 

So my point is LAY OFF!! What you are doing is dam.n well nasty, and I know if it was happening to any of you, you would be looking for whatever support you could get, and hoping the Mods would put a stop to it!!

 

 

* I mean abuse, I was called all sorts of four letter words and other derogatory things that should never be allowed on a forum.

 

I can only guess that you missed the last ridiculous episode.........Kewfriend eventually backed down and apologised after causing a huge furore amongst reviewers and cachers. You can't blame us for reacting and we are not being nasty - once bitten, twice shy.

[+natterjacktoad]

 

My apology is on record and all previous caches etc have indeed been archived, including a sidetracked. One seeks to re-establish a sidetracked, one communicates with the appropriate authority and one receives a reply - not necessarily the reply one wished. One publishes the reply.

 

Given that all the caches were archived in petulance, why would you seek to reinstate a sidetracked one and why would you be asking permission which, surely, you had when the cache was originally listed? If not to cause trouble?

 

EXACTLY.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think people should take note of Haggis Hunter's and Blorenge's comments. Despite getting rather excited over the Royal Parks incident (and who wouldn't?), Kewfriend has been known in the past for his reasonable and measured responses.

Perhaps this one needs more explaining, but I see no need for personal attacks.

[+Von-Horst]

Does Kewfriend (or anyone else) intend to submit a fresh Peter Pan cache for the Hyde Park (or adjacent)area?

 

It is a shame that the wonderful PPan series is missing the most important statue.

 

Mike

[+Moote]

I think people should take note of Haggis Hunter's and Blorenge's comments. Despite getting rather excited over the Royal Parks incident (and who wouldn't?), Kewfriend has been known in the past for his reasonable and measured responses.

Perhaps this one needs more explaining, but I see no need for personal attacks.

 

To be honest, we have a right to say these things, I have heard that he apologized late last year, but then what does he do, spits it back in our faces. I can accept an apology, I'm man enough for that; but to be duped well that is another issue. What are his future plans to try and knock Geocaching out!

[+natterjacktoad]

 

To be honest, we have a right to say these things, I have heard that he apologized late last year, but then what does he do, spits it back in our faces. I can accept an apology, I'm man enough for that; but to be duped well that is another issue. What are his future plans to try and knock Geocaching out!

 

Absolutely right. I don't think any of the posts have been unacceptable and we should feel free to exercise our right to speak out, the same as Kewfriend's 'supporters' do. Interesting that we've not heard any more from the protagonist....

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Here is Kf's apology from GAGB forums my emphasis, I believe he posted a duplicate here on the other thread in these forums:

 

OK ...

 

I havent posted for a while to let the dust settle and a sense of proportion, including my own, return.

 

There are lots of separate issues - my own hasty fury being one of them, and I apologise.

 

I have proposed a compromise to GC.COM. I am in direct discussions with the CEO Royal Parks. I have greater hope with the latter than with the former re Peter Pan.

 

With respect to the other issues:

 

1) GC.COMs behaviour - no further comment from me.

2) Geocaching in general - well if written proof of title ownership of land and/or permissions in future is required that opens a can of worms. Thus that includes whether (for instance) The Department of Transport etc is entitled to know which geocaches are placed on the public highways and to decided on their appropriateness. Your call - but you'll get the drift.

3) Unarchiving caches - out of my hands

 

I will do nothing hasty and I have calmed down. My apologies to all.

 

I'm not attempting to get my boot in as such, but I do question the meaning of his point 2. The apology seems sincere enough but there is this:

 

...Your call - but you'll get the drift.

 

To me, this appears to be a sting in the tail, it implies that although he'd apologised and calmed down for his reaction to Graculus over his Peter Pan cache, he was still intent on pursuing his secondary purpose of clarifying permissions for all land across all of the UK (as I understood his intent).

 

And so this is the second such pseudo-permission seeking post he's dumped here on the forums, the first is here but was misunderstood and overlooked by the regular fora:

 

From Defra:

QUOTE

In order to request permission to hide caches in your chosen location please write to:

Abdul Gerber, Regional Estates Manager (Thames)

Kings Meadow House

Kings Meadow Road

Reading

BERKS RG1 8DQ One would assume that unless such permission has been specifically granted permission does not exist. Reasonable requests I suspect will be met reasonably. Other regional managers must exist but I do not know who they are.

 

I haven't met Kewfriend, I trust those who defend his character that he is the kind of guy who you could have a pint with, I even sympathise with his view of the situation. But going by his actions it seems he is indeed intent on carrying out his plan to derail geocaching in the UK.

 

So the real question is, how many 'authorities' has Kewfriend written to so far, and how many responses has he received.

 

Of course, I don't think he can succeed in derailing geocaching in the UK, unless of course we respond to it. As far as those authorities he writes to goes, he is the only 'geocacher' they have heard of - may be making the whole thing up. Furthermore, they only want information from him, and are probably not all that interested unless we make it a big issue for them and force their hand.

 

Sleeping dogs etc...

Edited January 17, 2010 by _TeamFitz_

[+Haggis Hunter]

I can only guess that you missed the last ridiculous episode.........Kewfriend eventually backed down and apologised after causing a huge furore amongst reviewers and cachers. You can't blame us for reacting and we are not being nasty - once bitten, twice shy.

No not at all, I read it all, and was surprised to say the least at the posts Kewfriend had made, but he done something that many people on this forum can't bring themselves to do, and that was apologise. So until I know totally different that apology still stands.

 

Does Kewfriend (or anyone else) intend to submit a fresh Peter Pan cache for the Hyde Park (or adjacent)area?

 

It is a shame that the wonderful PPan series is missing the most important statue.

 

Mike

I think the statue in Brussels has gone missing, so the series may well be defunct anyway???

 

I think people should take note of Haggis Hunter's and Blorenge's comments. Despite getting rather excited over the Royal Parks incident (and who wouldn't?), Kewfriend has been known in the past for his reasonable and measured responses.

Perhaps this one needs more explaining, but I see no need for personal attacks.

 

To be honest, we have a right to say these things, I have heard that he apologized late last year, but then what does he do, spits it back in our faces. I can accept an apology, I'm man enough for that; but to be duped well that is another issue. What are his future plans to try and knock Geocaching out!

DO YOU REALLY?? You have the right to voice your opinion but to get personal like you and others have done, is not right what so ever. I know of a certain person who has contributed to this thread, who spat his dummy out every time he came on here, yet I can't recall of him ever posting an apology. I wonder who it could be???

 

 

To be honest, we have a right to say these things, I have heard that he apologized late last year, but then what does he do, spits it back in our faces. I can accept an apology, I'm man enough for that; but to be duped well that is another issue. What are his future plans to try and knock Geocaching out!

 

Absolutely right. I don't think any of the posts have been unacceptable and we should feel free to exercise our right to speak out, the same as Kewfriend's 'supporters' do. Interesting that we've not heard any more from the protagonist....

As already stated, you have the right to voice your opinion, as do I, but you certainly don't have the right to be a complete and utter rear end about it. Only expressing my opinion of course, I'm sure you won't be offended by that?

 

_TeamFitz_ has made the correct style of post, which in my view is acceptable as far as voicing their opinion without actually causing any offence, yet has still got the point across.

[+natterjacktoad]

 

As already stated, you have the right to voice your opinion, as do I, but you certainly don't have the right to be a complete and utter rear end about it. Only expressing my opinion of course, I'm sure you won't be offended by that?

 

_TeamFitz_ has made the correct style of post, which in my view is acceptable as far as voicing their opinion without actually causing any offence, yet has still got the point across.

 

Daft.

So it's OK to call me an a*se as long as you justify that by calling it your 'opinion'. I'm not offended - couldn't care less actually!

[+Yorkie30]

Forgive me for been a bit slow and thick but I think the real topic on here should be more like this.

 

If I had permission for a sidetracked cache to be on a railway station fence given to me by the station master, (yes some smaller stations still have them) but not from Network Rail head office then it would need to be removed if head office in London said so and they proved to own the bit of fence it was hanging from, if they are told it is there.

 

Again the same with a Wildlife Trust, the Duchy of Cornwall and also an American investment bank who all own land I have a geocache on but have the permission from the local tenant or manager who has worked the land for years.

 

So to place a geocache we need to approach every large land owner in the UK to ask for permission because the common sense of local managers, land stewards etc are no longer good enough. (I realise GAGB have already done great work on this matter already.)

 

Well that's one way to cut down on the reviewers work because they would publish about 2 caches a year.

 

So the real issue here is how we can gain permission and from whom, not getting trying to get a mob together in Kew. (Which is a very nice place and of course a great garden)

[+natterjacktoad]

Forgive me for been a bit slow and thick but I think the real topic on here should be more like this.

 

If I had permission for a sidetracked cache to be on a railway station fence given to me by the station master, (yes some smaller stations still have them) but not from Network Rail head office then it would need to be removed if head office in London said so and they proved to own the bit of fence it was hanging from, if they are told it is there.

 

Again the same with a Wildlife Trust, the Duchy of Cornwall and also an American investment bank who all own land I have a geocache on but have the permission from the local tenant or manager who has worked the land for years.

 

So to place a geocache we need to approach every large land owner in the UK to ask for permission because the common sense of local managers, land stewards etc are no longer good enough. (I realise GAGB have already done great work on this matter already.)

 

Well that's one way to cut down on the reviewers work because they would publish about 2 caches a year.

 

So the real issue here is how we can gain permission and from whom, not getting trying to get a mob together in Kew. (Which is a very nice place and of course a great garden)

 

If only it were that simple......... If you want to spend time researching the history on this you will find that there has been a threat made to attempt to get most of the caches in the country archived. This is not an opinion but a fact.

[team tisri]

Forgive me for been a bit slow and thick but I think the real topic on here should be more like this.

 

If I had permission for a sidetracked cache to be on a railway station fence given to me by the station master, (yes some smaller stations still have them) but not from Network Rail head office then it would need to be removed if head office in London said so and they proved to own the bit of fence it was hanging from, if they are told it is there.

 

Again the same with a Wildlife Trust, the Duchy of Cornwall and also an American investment bank who all own land I have a geocache on but have the permission from the local tenant or manager who has worked the land for years.

 

So to place a geocache we need to approach every large land owner in the UK to ask for permission because the common sense of local managers, land stewards etc are no longer good enough. (I realise GAGB have already done great work on this matter already.)

 

Well that's one way to cut down on the reviewers work because they would publish about 2 caches a year.

 

So the real issue here is how we can gain permission and from whom, not getting trying to get a mob together in Kew. (Which is a very nice place and of course a great garden)

 

If only it were that simple......... If you want to spend time researching the history on this you will find that there has been a threat made to attempt to get most of the caches in the country archived. This is not an opinion but a fact.

 

And that threat was followed by an equally public apology. Also a fact.

 

Let's stop bashing kewfriend, at least until it's known what's going on here.

[+Moote]

I think people should take note of Haggis Hunter's and Blorenge's comments. Despite getting rather excited over the Royal Parks incident (and who wouldn't?), Kewfriend has been known in the past for his reasonable and measured responses.

Perhaps this one needs more explaining, but I see no need for personal attacks.

 

To be honest, we have a right to say these things, I have heard that he apologized late last year, but then what does he do, spits it back in our faces. I can accept an apology, I'm man enough for that; but to be duped well that is another issue. What are his future plans to try and knock Geocaching out!

DO YOU REALLY?? You have the right to voice your opinion but to get personal like you and others have done, is not right what so ever. I know of a certain person who has contributed to this thread, who spat his dummy out every time he came on here, yet I can't recall of him ever posting an apology. I wonder who it could be???

I know you are referring to me, but only once have I challenged a cache, under safety of others, and destruction of a vital SSSI, I will never apologize for that intervention. I have never gone out of my way to get caches archived just because I have a mardy gripe with a decisions taken outside of the hands of GC.com or the UK reviewers. All other posts I make are my beliefs and anyone who is offended, well that is their issue! Edited January 18, 2010 by Moote

[+NickandAliandEliza]

At this stage I'd like to suggest that the cause of geocaching in the UK would be best served by leaving this whole matter for kewfriend and Deceangi to discuss in private. Further speculation regarding motives and intent is not helpful, IMHO.

 

If UK geocachers need to take any action regarding the locations of their caches then I'm sure Deceangi or the other reviewers will contact individuals in due course.

 

MrsB

 

I make you right. This is just going to end up as one big slanging match otherwise. Which is kind of pointless. I'm suspicious about Kewfriends methods and motives, but until we know the full circumstances, we really are doing him a disservice. I think everyone should stop trying him - as it were, as at the moment it's all speculation and supposition.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Nick & Ali

[+natterjacktoad]

I spent a lot of time thinking about this last night and came to the conclusion that Kewfriend is probably getting off on dropping a bombshell and then watching us all get heated about it

I for one would be grateful if Deci keeps us up to date with what is going on but I'm happy to keep my peace for the moment.

[+Haggis Hunter]

 

As already stated, you have the right to voice your opinion, as do I, but you certainly don't have the right to be a complete and utter rear end about it. Only expressing my opinion of course, I'm sure you won't be offended by that?

 

_TeamFitz_ has made the correct style of post, which in my view is acceptable as far as voicing their opinion without actually causing any offence, yet has still got the point across.

 

Daft.

So it's OK to call me an a*se as long as you justify that by calling it your 'opinion'. I'm not offended - couldn't care less actually!

No it's NOT OK for me or anyone else to make such posts, I deliberately made my post stronger to try and raise the issue that if you say it's your opinion then it doesn't mean it's OK to be derogative towards a fellow member.

Whether you were offended or not, I do apologise for making my point in such a way.

 

 

If only it were that simple......... If you want to spend time researching the history on this you will find that there has been a threat made to attempt to get most of the caches in the country archived. This is not an opinion but a fact.

 

And that threat was followed by an equally public apology. Also a fact.

 

Let's stop bashing kewfriend, at least until it's known what's going on here.

You bet me to it.

 

DO YOU REALLY?? You have the right to voice your opinion but to get personal like you and others have done, is not right what so ever. I know of a certain person who has contributed to this thread, who spat his dummy out every time he came on here, yet I can't recall of him ever posting an apology. I wonder who it could be???

I know you are referring to me, but only once have I challenged a cache, under safety of others, and destruction of a vital SSSI, I will never apologize for that intervention. I have never gone out of my way to get caches archived just because I have a mardy gripe with a decisions taken outside of the hands of GC.com or the UK reviewers. All other posts I make are my beliefs and anyone who is offended, well that is their issue!

Yes, I was, but let's be honest there was a lot more than just that occasion when you have threw your dummy out of the pram.

 

At this stage I'd like to suggest that the cause of geocaching in the UK would be best served by leaving this whole matter for kewfriend and Deceangi to discuss in private. Further speculation regarding motives and intent is not helpful, IMHO.

 

If UK geocachers need to take any action regarding the locations of their caches then I'm sure Deceangi or the other reviewers will contact individuals in due course.

 

MrsB

 

I make you right. This is just going to end up as one big slanging match otherwise. Which is kind of pointless. I'm suspicious about Kewfriends methods and motives, but until we know the full circumstances, we really are doing him a disservice. I think everyone should stop trying him - as it were, as at the moment it's all speculation and supposition.

I agree, and I am getting embroiled in this, therefore I am going to try and take more of an observation of how things unfold. I too am still unsure of what is going on, but agree that Kewfriend is certainly getting a disservice based upon current speculation.

 

I spent a lot of time thinking about this last night and came to the conclusion that Kewfriend is probably getting off on dropping a bombshell and then watching us all get heated about it

I for one would be grateful if Deci keeps us up to date with what is going on but I'm happy to keep my peace for the moment.

That you may well be correct about, although I hope not. Let us all sit back and see what happens. If nothing comes of it then so be it.

[+drdick&vick]

Quite agree with this thread being allowed to drop into the pit of 'none interest' and await updates from Deci or from the OP himself but just in case it is a loaded gun for others to use, it should now be ignored.

 

I know I shall unless any updates are posted by Deci or Kewfriend.

[+HouseOfDragons]

He apologised and said "I will do nothing hasty". He didn't say he wouldn't do anything, just that he wouldn't be hasty about it. I'm guessing this is what counts as "not hasty".

[+Guanajuato]

Problem is, you go high enough up a big organisation and you'll find someone who'll just say 'No' as a first response to shut you up and move you along with minimum effort.

If you word the question(s) right (imply somthing covert or risky), you can be CERTAIN of getting refusal.

 

The thing is, if the recipient takes the time to investigate, they'll see there's less risk than with the general public in the same area. But of course, they're too 'busy' to spend the time. So for an easy life say 'No' because that's the default answer to anything they PERCEIVE to be a risk. Lazy? arguably. Understandable? Yes! They've got better things to do than deal with a few geeks.

[Jester1970]

... Unfortunately for safety reasons we cannot allow any geocaches to be place on Network Rail's land. It is also a criminal offence for individuals to trespass on the operational railway and we are concerned that some of the geocaches are on rail property and may thus expose participants in your sport to the risk of prosecution and/or safety risks.

 

... In this regard we would be grateful if you could provide us with details of any geocaches which .. may be on Network Rail's land so that we can investigate this further ...

 

Brian Wortman - Communications Executive - Govt & Corporate Affairs

Network rail, Community Relations, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG

tel: 0845 7 11 41 41

Its obviously not my 'shout' to pass this information onto Network Rail. Hopefully TPTB/Reviewers can deal with this.

 

Rather than trying to Publicly ambush the UK Reviewers and Groundspeak, by posting part of a email you have apparently received, at a unknown date. Please foreword the entire email including headers to one of us. It would help if you would also include the email you sent to them so that we can actually see what was sent to them to generate the reply.

 

Because until one of us receives a copy of the emails including headers so that we can appropriately reply to the appropriate person. We are unable to proceed forward.

 

 

I would be interested in why Network Rail are implying that caches are located on or within the boundaries of the Rails! I am aware of one person who applied for permission on Network Rail Property who was refused. But in that case the location was a Public Footpath (RoW), outside of the fenced off Rail Area. And was a Designated SSSI along a Costal Path. Needless to say the cache was relocated off Network Railway owned land onto County Council owned Land.

 

Deci

They aren't, and nowhere do they imply that they are. The railway boundary is ANYWHERE within the railway boundary fencing.

[Jester1970]

... Unfortunately for safety reasons we cannot allow any geocaches to be place on Network Rail's land. It is also a criminal offence for individuals to trespass on the operational railway and we are concerned that some of the geocaches are on rail property and may thus expose participants in your sport to the risk of prosecution and/or safety risks.

 

... In this regard we would be grateful if you could provide us with details of any geocaches which .. may be on Network Rail's land so that we can investigate this further ...

 

Brian Wortman - Communications Executive - Govt & Corporate Affairs

Network rail, Community Relations, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG

tel: 0845 7 11 41 41

Its obviously not my 'shout' to pass this information onto Network Rail. Hopefully TPTB/Reviewers can deal with this.

 

...... Please foreword the entire email including headers to one of us. It would help if you would also include the email you sent to them so that we can actually see what was sent to them to generate the reply.

 

Because until one of us receives a copy of the emails including headers so that we can appropriately reply to the appropriate person. We are unable to proceed forward.

 

............

Deci

 

I can't find any trace of "Brian" anywhere in the UK. However his twin is a backhaul manager for Walmart in the states. However, I've punted a mail to his most likely address, but I expect it to be returned to sender.

 

You don't have an imaginary friend do you?

According to my Network Rail address book he is a Communications Executive, based in London.

[+Haggis Hunter]

... Unfortunately for safety reasons we cannot allow any geocaches to be place on Network Rail's land. It is also a criminal offence for individuals to trespass on the operational railway and we are concerned that some of the geocaches are on rail property and may thus expose participants in your sport to the risk of prosecution and/or safety risks.

 

... In this regard we would be grateful if you could provide us with details of any geocaches which .. may be on Network Rail's land so that we can investigate this further ...

 

Brian Wortman - Communications Executive - Govt & Corporate Affairs

Network rail, Community Relations, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG

tel: 0845 7 11 41 41

Its obviously not my 'shout' to pass this information onto Network Rail. Hopefully TPTB/Reviewers can deal with this.

 

Rather than trying to Publicly ambush the UK Reviewers and Groundspeak, by posting part of a email you have apparently received, at a unknown date. Please foreword the entire email including headers to one of us. It would help if you would also include the email you sent to them so that we can actually see what was sent to them to generate the reply.

 

Because until one of us receives a copy of the emails including headers so that we can appropriately reply to the appropriate person. We are unable to proceed forward.

 

 

I would be interested in why Network Rail are implying that caches are located on or within the boundaries of the Rails! I am aware of one person who applied for permission on Network Rail Property who was refused. But in that case the location was a Public Footpath (RoW), outside of the fenced off Rail Area. And was a Designated SSSI along a Costal Path. Needless to say the cache was relocated off Network Railway owned land onto County Council owned Land.

 

Deci

They aren't, and nowhere do they imply that they are. The railway boundary is ANYWHERE within the railway boundary fencing.

My bold is where they imply that the caches are within the boundary of the rails. Well that is how I read it.

I also read into their last sentence, that they may be happy for caches to stay where they are if they don't cause a risk?

[Jester1970]

Once again I'll make the same request.

 

Please forward the email you sent and the reply you received including the headers to one of the UK Reviewers.

 

That is the full content except for personal details edited out.

 

Sorry but you haven't edited out all personal details

 

Brian Wortman - Communications Executive - Govt & Corporate Affairs Network rail, Community Relations, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG tel: 0845 7 11 41 41

 

Unless either one of my colleagues or myself has the full details of the request with generated the reply and the full reply that means including the headers. We are unable to assess or reply to the request.

 

As you seem unwilling to provide this information, please provide all the evidence including GC Code and Proof of the Landowner where every cache is located to one of my colleagues or myself.

 

In the case I mentioned, it is outside of the Fenced off area of the rails. And is a RoW forming part of a Coastal Path, which is being upgraded by the local CC. The reason I asked for Proof was due to the original cache location being a SSSI. The owner contacted the local CC Rangers for Permission, presuming as they'd just upgraded that section of Path that the CC must own it. It was the Ranger who provided information that the location was owned by Network Rail. At no time did I or do I have access to information showing the actual boundaries of Land Owned by Network Rail. and have to work on the basis of the Boundary Fence marks the Boundary. Caches on the other side of the Fence are not not knowingly published

 

I've refused caches placed within the fenced area at Pedestrian Level Crossings accessed by stile or Kissing Gate. As for Side Tracked Caches, I use as many as possible resources to insure that the container is off Station Property! Again I have no access to the actual Boundary of Land owned by Network Rail. So try to insure that the container is off all indicated Network Rail Property, that is off the Station, Car park and any approach which appears to belong specifically to the Station. IE: is not also access to Non Network Rail Property.

 

So as you have access to this information, please either provide it to my colleagues and myself, or provide Landownership and GC Codes for every cache that you have Proof is on Network Rail owned Land!

 

Please stop beating around the bush claiming that it is down to the UK Reviewers to do the work! You obviously and intentionally started this issue, and claim to have the Proof. So please provide this proof to the UK Reviewers.

 

Deci

I know of at least two which are clearly listed as being on station property, so it is really not on to be having a dig at someone, making out he is lying.

[Deceangi]

Once again I'll make the same request.

 

Please forward the email you sent and the reply you received including the headers to one of the UK Reviewers.

 

That is the full content except for personal details edited out.

 

Sorry but you haven't edited out all personal details

 

Brian Wortman - Communications Executive - Govt & Corporate Affairs Network rail, Community Relations, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG tel: 0845 7 11 41 41

 

Unless either one of my colleagues or myself has the full details of the request with generated the reply and the full reply that means including the headers. We are unable to assess or reply to the request.

 

As you seem unwilling to provide this information, please provide all the evidence including GC Code and Proof of the Landowner where every cache is located to one of my colleagues or myself.

 

In the case I mentioned, it is outside of the Fenced off area of the rails. And is a RoW forming part of a Coastal Path, which is being upgraded by the local CC. The reason I asked for Proof was due to the original cache location being a SSSI. The owner contacted the local CC Rangers for Permission, presuming as they'd just upgraded that section of Path that the CC must own it. It was the Ranger who provided information that the location was owned by Network Rail. At no time did I or do I have access to information showing the actual boundaries of Land Owned by Network Rail. and have to work on the basis of the Boundary Fence marks the Boundary. Caches on the other side of the Fence are not not knowingly published

 

I've refused caches placed within the fenced area at Pedestrian Level Crossings accessed by stile or Kissing Gate. As for Side Tracked Caches, I use as many as possible resources to insure that the container is off Station Property! Again I have no access to the actual Boundary of Land owned by Network Rail. So try to insure that the container is off all indicated Network Rail Property, that is off the Station, Car park and any approach which appears to belong specifically to the Station. IE: is not also access to Non Network Rail Property.

 

So as you have access to this information, please either provide it to my colleagues and myself, or provide Landownership and GC Codes for every cache that you have Proof is on Network Rail owned Land!

 

Please stop beating around the bush claiming that it is down to the UK Reviewers to do the work! You obviously and intentionally started this issue, and claim to have the Proof. So please provide this proof to the UK Reviewers.

 

Deci

I know of at least two which are clearly listed as being on station property, so it is really not on to be having a dig at someone, making out he is lying.

 

Sorry but you've misunderstood my post. The partial email the the OP posted, specifically states Network Rail Owned Land

 

... In this regard we would be grateful if you could provide us with details of any geocaches which .. may be on Network Rail's land so that we can investigate this further ...

Not Stations

 

As my post pointed out Network Rail own land which extends beyond the Safety Fence within which the Rails are located. As there is no resource currently available to the Public which shows the actually boundaries of the Land Owned by Network Rail. My colleagues or myself could have published hundreds or even thousands of caches on Land owned by Network Rail excluding Stations.

 

One example is Manchester Piccadilly Station Manchester. The approach road is a Public Highway, with shops along it. And when I lived in Manchester you could get a Parking Ticket for illegally parking on it. Not by a BR employee but by a Traffic Warden. Despite this the Road, Pavement and Buildings the shops are in are or were owned by BR [now Network Rail]. So even though you've not entered the boundary of the Station, your still on Land owned by Network Rail.

 

Yet the OP despite failing to provide the requested full email, expects the UK Reviewers to locate every cache situated on Land owned by Network Rail.

 

Own a cache on a RoW which runs along the fence line of the Rails, then you could own a cache on Network Rail owned land!

[+currykev]

Jan 15 - KF is 11/2

Jan 20 - KF is now 100/30

[+Munkeh]

Jan 15 - KF is 11/2

Jan 20 - KF is now 100/30

 

you giving odds kev, because if you are they should be decimal

[+Moote]

I have it on good authority that most B&Q stores are built on land owned by Network Rail, in fact quite a lot of this kind of facility build next to railways is actually built on NR land.

[Neath Worthies]

I have it on good authority that most B&Q stores are built on land owned by Network Rail, in fact quite a lot of this kind of facility build next to railways is actually built on NR land.

So no cache'n'dashes in B&Q car parks - excellent!

[+Yorkie30]

I have it on good authority that most B&Q stores are built on land owned by Network Rail, in fact quite a lot of this kind of facility build next to railways is actually built on NR land.

 

From Network rail website

"You probably don’t know this, but we’re one of the country’s largest property owners. We boast a portfolio that is as substantial as it is unique. There are over 20,000 buildings, 2,500 stations and 9,000 railway arches, not to mention offices, shops, leisure and industrial units. You’re not likely to find a career in commercial property that is as exciting and varied as ours."

 

(Bold is mine)

[+uk89camaro]

Brian Wortman is a real person, working at Network rail. I know this because he responded to an e-mail I sent him about some spurious business enquiry.

 

His footer don't look the one in the OP's first post though.

 

So I have to take back my "imaginary friend" dig, and re-iterate the request for the OP to send the orginal mail "with headers" to deci.