Jump to content

Manchester Airport Geocache Exclusion Zone


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Greater Manchester Police based at Manchester Airport have set up a Geocache Exclusion Zone around Manchester Airport

 

GAGB GLAD Entry

 

The GLAD entry includes a link to a Google Maps Overlay. Currently the Exclusion Zone follows the boundary of the Airport, but the Zone is currently under review by them.

 

They set up the Exclusion Zone after a Geocacher(s) were viewed by a Muggle retrieving a container and reported this to the Police. At no time was the there any negotiations with them about this Exclusion Zone.

 

I was the recipient Reviewer of the details of the Exclusion Zone after it had been set up. Whilst no other Police Service based at a Airport, has yet to set up a similar exclusion zone. The UK Reviewers will be taking a tighter stance in the future, in regards to all Geocaches placed near to a Airport or Military Base.

 

If/when they GMP have finished reviewing the Geocache Exclusion zone, and decide to extend it. The above link will be update to show any new boundary extensions.

 

The Owners of all caches which fell within the Exclusion Zone were contacted directly and asked to re-located their caches.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

Link to comment
So a cache, with landowner permission, within that zone would not be approved?

 

To avoid any risk of a major security incident, I would ask for conformation that the Landowner has Liaised with GMP about the cache placement. Just because there is Landowner Permission, it would not stop GMP attending any report of suspicious activity. Currently the Exclusion Zone Boundary is being kept as tight as possible to the Airport Boundary.

 

I'd rather refuse to publish a cache than further risk creating a Security Alert.

 

They have access to GC, so were aware of all caches listed with the Exclusion Zone and made direct contact with each cache owner. Before contacting me in regards to the setting up of it.

 

Of course if any other Listing Site lists a Geocache within the Exclusion Zone, they will be contacted directly by GMP. As I would not be surprised if they also have accounts on other Listing Sites.

 

Please do not consider this to be a joke, the security level at the Airport is High. Given that the level of Fire Arms Officers based at the Airport is about 60%, that means there is a extremely higher risk of Armed Officers attending a report of suspicious behaviour. Given the Global nature of the hobby, that means there is a higher risk of someone with no or limited command of English being challenged by these Officers. Raising the risk of a tragic indecent happening, which was a concern of the Met Police Officer. When the London Met Agreement was set up.

 

And yes rutson I'm fully aware your friends with the cache owner. And I have seen copies of the emails sent to him by the person who clearly identifies himself as a Police Officer. The CO was given a reasonable amount of time within which to relocate the container and failed to do so. All other CO's whose caches fell within the Exclusion Zone complied, when requested to relocate them.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer.

Link to comment

As a cache owner affected by this, I was extremely disappointed not to be contacted by an official from Greater Manchester Police, Manchester Airport or any UK Reviewer before my cache was archived.

 

What I am surprised about, is the fact some caches that are extremely close to the runway remain active...

 

I would have expected GMP or Manchester Airport to have made an official approach to Groundspeak, rather than a cacher on their behalf.

 

Now, if I had received the alleged emails, I certainly would have enquired further and/or taken actions. But for a reviewer to archive a cache without any warning, or even trying to make contact with the cache owner (Dave I know you have my email address) is simply unacceptable.

 

Seriously disappointed with the whole issue, and how TPTB have dealt with it (this includes the Police and the Airport Authorities)

Link to comment

Interestingly enough the 'Aviation Viewing Park' is in the exclusion zone.

 

Shall we ring the police to say that muggles are acting suspiciously there? :wacko:

Are event caches within the exclusion zone also to be banned in future...a group of sober geocachers may not meet, but a hoard of drunk muggles is just fine :D ?

 

GCT6BR

 

btw the Aviation Viewing Park as labelled on Google is in fact the fire station - the entrance to the AVP is at N53 21.355 W2 17.053

Edited by Mittellegi
Link to comment

Looking at the map, I think the zone is quite tight around the airport.

If I were a local, I would not have put one there anyway, as it would be looking for trouble.

I'm surprised that Badger is disappointed.

I'm not surprised Deceangi has quickly denied any negotiations were in progress.

Collect your containers and move on please. :D

Link to comment
As a cache owner affected by this, I was extremely disappointed not to be contacted by an official from Greater Manchester Police, Manchester Airport or any UK Reviewer before my cache was archived.

 

What I am surprised about, is the fact some caches that are extremely close to the runway remain active...

 

I would have expected GMP or Manchester Airport to have made an official approach to Groundspeak, rather than a cacher on their behalf.

 

Now, if I had received the alleged emails, I certainly would have enquired further and/or taken actions. But for a reviewer to archive a cache without any warning, or even trying to make contact with the cache owner (Dave I know you have my email address) is simply unacceptable.

 

Seriously disappointed with the whole issue, and how TPTB have dealt with it (this includes the Police and the Airport Authorities)

 

Sorry but I would suggest you either check your spam folder or the email address you you have set in your profile. 2 emails were sent to you by a Inspector from Greater Manchester Police based at the Airport [in fact he's now even posted a contact phone number to your cache page, after your log complaining about the lack of contact] via the contact a member facility here on GC. In both emails he clearly identifies himself fully as a Police Officer acting in a Official capacity.

 

I was brought into the loop and asked to action your cache, after the 2 emails had been sent and you had been given a 3 week period in which to action the cache.

 

I found out about the Exclusion Zone when I was asked to action the cache. If you are not now using the account or do not check it. Then that alone presents Maintenance issues, in that your not aware of any log's made to the cache highlighting any issues, Needs Maintenance Logs or Needs Archiving logs.

 

So I'm sorry but two clear requests made by a Serving Police Officer and a 3 week period to allow for action, was a sufficient period. To justify my actions, especially when other GC Members contacted in the same way voluntary actioned their caches. So confirming that there was no issues with the way contact was made.Groundspeak on contacting me included both emails in their email to me. So I have seen copies of both, and there is a Server record of both emails being sent.

 

If I got an email from someone claiming to be from the police it would go straight into the same folder as the ones from the bank wanting me to "re-enter my details", the spam folder!

 

Just to make it very clear. The emails have the Officers full details

 

Name

Rank

Section within Greater Manchester Police

Location Based

Telephone contact details

 

Of course if you receive such a email from someone through the Contact a Member on GC. Who clearly states they are a Police Officer acting in a Official Capacity. You have 4 options.

 

Contact Groundspeak and ask them to confirm the person is genuine

Contact a Reviewer and as them to confirm the person is genuine

Contact the appropriate Police Force and ask for conformation that the person is genuine

put the email in to your spam folder. But don't be surprised if your cache then got Archived because you've failed to contact the Officer. Who then contacts Groundspeak or a Reviewer about the lack of response and action of the cache by you.

 

In this case the Officer concerned contacted me directly, as he has in the past about situations with caches near the Airport Boundary. He also contacted Groundspeak Directly, who by the time they contacted me to action the cache [as a unpaid volunteer I work weekends as well as all week] I had already actioned the cache on reading the email. And set up the Exclusion Zone Posts [GC,GAGB & NW forum] and also with the help of Graculus the map linked to in the GLAD entry. Which was listed within 10 minutes of the recipient Committee Member receiving my email.

 

What was different in this case, he had now been tasked by his superiors to set up the Geocache Exclusion Zone. So rather than working quietly with me to resolve issues, He had to do so in a Official Capacity.

 

If your attending a Geocaching Event at a Public House, Hotel within the exclusion zone. Or even one of the Conference Facilities at the Airport, you are then going about your business the same way thousands of other people do every year. The difference being your not searching for a hidden box, and acting in a maner which flags up concern to a member of the public.

 

It's been the actions of Geocachers who have brought the attention of the Police at the Airport. The last incident, which caused the creation of the Exclusion Zone.

 

Geocacher(s) in full view of a member of the public (so much for discretion, must have been a numbers grab), dived into a bush and came out clutching the container. This person then contacted the Police about his concerns. They quickly followed up on the Report, discovered and removed the container.

 

The Officer was then tasked with setting up the Exclusion Zone, and that ended the quiet actioning of any cache causing issues.

 

I would add this is not the first time a cache has been removed by Police, in each case they have clearly identified themselves with Name, Rank, Police Station and contact details. So it is easy to confirm if needed that they are genuine.

 

And to make the situation very clear, the Officer has contacted me directly in the past. In a unofficial capacity, to raise concerns about specific caches near the Airport. I have always Archived the caches and requested the owner uplifts the container ASAP. This time the Officer at the direct instructions of his superiors [he is a Inspector] was tasked with setting up the Exclusion Zone. He directly contacted all Cache Owners and requested that they relocate their containers. Whilst this was going on, I was not involved in any capacity. 3 weeks after the second request to one Member, the Officer contacted me directly and Groundspeak in a Official Capacity about the cache. He also provided me with the details of the Exclusion Zone. It was at this point dis I become aware of the creation of the Zone and the actioning of the other affected caches. At not time were there any Official talks between GMP myself or any other Reviewer or member of the GAGB.

 

The exclusion Zone has been kept as tight as possible to the Airport Boundary, but this will be in constant review by Greater Manchester Police [i nor any other Reviewer will be involved in this Review] if they decide on making a Assessment, the GMP will advice us of the change of Boundaries. The GMP will then contact any Cache Owner whose cache falls within the new Boundary. With a request to relocate it. Only if after a reasonable time the owner has failed to action it, will a GC Reviewer take action. The Exclusion Zone is entirely down to GMP, and as such they are the ones responsible for it. GC's Reviewers are just responsible for insuring that no new cache submission is published within it.

 

Deci

Link to comment

Why is it that everytime the reviewers do the correct thing for the future of our hobby, people come on here and start giving them a hard time?? :D Let's remember that they work for free and if they are asked to archive a cache due to security reasons then they can't be seen to pussyfoot about trying to keep the owners of a plastic box happy, they should do as asked and archive the dam* thing.

 

You just have to read this log to see how serious it could be? If they hadn't found the container anything may have happened to them?

 

If you haven't had the experience of a landowner, security or police stopping you and you having to explain yourself, I can tell you it isn't a nice experience.

Thankfully all of my instances have turned out OK, with the police finding it the most funny, but being surrounded by security because you are right next to the Scottish Parliament hunting for a cache that did not have permission wasn't comfotable, or being stopped in a distillery because the cache owner didn't have the time to ask for permission wasn't nice either and used up an hour and a half of my time, because I done the right thing and took the time to explain and show them online what I was doing.

 

Going by what people have said on other threads, some people want to be a law unto themselves, lets just list them on another site that you don't need to get permission for, I hear being said all the time. Well I can say I think you are selfish, as the landowners (or police in this instance) won't recognise it as anything other than a geocache, and that means that those people who do try and do things rigth, get penalised by those that want to cut corners.

 

If a cache is placed with the knowledge of the police or local landowner and someone reports the suspicious activity, they are still going to attend and check it out, but what it does do is allows the police to make an informed desicion on the scene, once they have established that it is cachers that they are dealing with.

I have sevral caches in my place of work, if someone reported to me suspicious activity in the location of one of my caches, I would have a good idea what I was going to, but I would still go just in case. The example log that I have listed above is a good example of police time wasted and innocent people being stopped and having their personal details taken down due to cache owner selfishness.

 

My last point is that there is a big difference from a person stood watching planes and another person at the same location hiding a container within range of a high security area. I think some forget about Heathrow being mortared from just outside it's perimeter fence!!

 

*Deliberately misspelt as if you spell it correctly you end up with dadgum on the forum.

Link to comment
... lets just list them on another site that you don't need to get permission for, I hear being said all the time.
I hope it's not something you hear "all the time". I'm one of the most prolific users of other listing sites, and I certainly don't believe in a "free for all" system where caches can be placed anywhere without permission. Other site's rules need not be identical to Groundspeak's, but as I think in most cases Groundspeak do a pretty good job, in practice there should be many similarities.

 

In this particular case, the only thing that concerns me is the legal basis on which the police have set up this exclusion zone. Of course they could request such a zone, and in that case I would support going along with it, provided it was no greater than necessary. But it's not clear to me what powers they have been invested with by Parliament that permit them to impose arbitrary restrictions on arbitrary activities in this way?

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

My email is working perfectly fine, and is checked regularly. I have received other contact emails from Groundspeak, and copies of those that I have sent. Clearly the fact that I did not receive any regarding this issue is a cause for concern.

 

 

Before claiming people are giving the reviewers a hard time about their actions, you may want to check what was said. You will find that I am not giving the reviewers a hard time about the actions taken, but rather the lack of contact made with the cache owner.

 

Kev, why are you surprised that I'm disappointed? I'm sure most people would be disappointed to find out their cache had been archived without any contact from a reviewer. If you were local, you'd also know that the small wood the cache is in, is unique to the area, and was chosen as it suited the specific container perfectly.

 

Haggis, nobody was stopped at this cache by the Police, or if they were then they never commented on it in their log.

Link to comment

Badger (and maybe others - I do not know you -- BUT - I had a Police AR Unit decend on the wood I was shooting pigeons in - they were waving guns about at me - shouting all maner of things through megaphones - had the compele afternoon ****ed up because some bl33din idiot RANG the Police about a suspicious person in camoflage clothing with a gun was hiding in the woods FFS ! !

 

IT'S REAL - it's 2010 - like it or not - the countryside is NOT a Police free zone !!! They ARE ARMED and MEAN IT --

 

You 'appear' to have your head so far up your backside you can see the daylight between your tonsils !

 

GET REAL -- and don't be so SELFISH and SELFCENTRED -- and ????

 

Oh - do I care what you think of me ?? Just ask yourself the obvious question ? ? ? ? ?

 

 

My email is working perfectly fine, and is checked regularly. I have received other contact emails from Groundspeak, and copies of those that I have sent. Clearly the fact that I did not receive any regarding this issue is a cause for concern.

 

 

Before claiming people are giving the reviewers a hard time about their actions, you may want to check what was said. You will find that I am not giving the reviewers a hard time about the actions taken, but rather the lack of contact made with the cache owner.

 

Kev, why are you surprised that I'm disappointed? I'm sure most people would be disappointed to find out their cache had been archived without any contact from a reviewer. If you were local, you'd also know that the small wood the cache is in, is unique to the area, and was chosen as it suited the specific container perfectly.

 

Haggis, nobody was stopped at this cache by the Police, or if they were then they never commented on it in their log.

Link to comment

What exactly do guns have to do with this???

 

Please re-read what I wrote, then read it again. It was the lack of communication from Groundspeak/Reviewers before archiving my cache! So before you jump in and tell people to get real, learn to read and understand what has been said.

 

And using an abbreviation which contains foul and abusive language is not required.

Link to comment
... lets just list them on another site that you don't need to get permission for, I hear being said all the time.
I hope it's not something you hear "all the time". I'm one of the most prolific users of other listing sites, and I certainly don't believe in a "free for all" system where caches can be placed anywhere without permission. Other site's rules need not be identical to Groundspeak's, but as I think in most cases Groundspeak do a pretty good job, in practice there should be many similarities.

 

In this particular case, the only thing that concerns me is the legal basis on which the police have set up this exclusion zone. Of course they could request such a zone, and in that case I would support going along with it, provided it was no greater than necessary. But it's not clear to me what powers they have been invested with by Parliament that permit them to impose arbitrary restrictions on arbitrary activities in this way?

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Not sure why they would need any legal basis? They have set up an exclusion zone within which (at the moment) caches may not be hidden and listed on this site. I assume they have also approached other listing sites to make the same request.

Were you to set up a completely independent site and list caches that had been hidden within the zone, I am not sure what actions the Police could bring about the cache container and to the hider - that would require a legal basis, and not the listing itself.

People keep forgetting that Groundspeak/Geocaching.com do not give or remove permission for the hiding of physical caches - they are a listing site only. However, if you want to have your caches listed here, you need to follow their guidelines - and sometimes their guidelines - reasonably enough - conform to requests from third parties like the Police and land managers.

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

...moving swiftly on...

 

Presumably this exclusion zone will be permanent, as terrorism is part of the British way of life now and is unlikely to change in the future. But it might be worth confirming that.

 

Also, as we know, the US is rather more vulnerable and sensitive about airport sites than we are. So it could be worth including the US reviewers in the loop so that we can benefit from their experience of all the airport exclusion zones in force over there, rather than just having to accept whatever is thrown at us.

Link to comment

After reading all of the post here and wondering at the way it seems to be going I have decided to put my twopence worth in.

I think the reviewers are doing a great job. At the moment they seem to be getting all the hassel from cachers as well as the authorities, and are having to make the best desicion to suit all. But if the police say for security reasons airports are "no go" then accept it. There is no bitching about it.

Link to comment

After reading all of the post here and wondering at the way it seems to be going I have decided to put my twopence worth in.

I think the reviewers are doing a great job. At the moment they seem to be getting all the hassel from cachers as well as the authorities, and are having to make the best desicion to suit all. But if the police say for security reasons airports are "no go" then accept it. There is no bitching about it.

 

Again, read my posts... the issue is the LACK OF COMMUNICATION from the Groundspeak/reviewers before archiving the cache.

Link to comment

There is no bitching about it.

I didn't expect my suggestions to be taken as "bitching". I was trying to be constructive, by suggesting a couple of checks that might help in coming to an agreement with the police. It appears that the reviewers did everything they were expected to under the circumstances.

Link to comment

What exactly do guns have to do with this???

Would you like to be going about your business and have an Armed Response Unit pointing guns at you?

 

Please re-read what I wrote, then read it again. It was the lack of communication from Groundspeak/Reviewers before archiving my cache! So before you jump in and tell people to get real, learn to read and understand what has been said.

It seems very odd that you and only you failed to get the emails form the GMP about the requirement to relocate your cache as it fell in the exclusion zone.

 

Dave says that he has evidence fro Groundspeak the the emails were sent, so either your ISP is dropping email silently, they went to an account you no longer check, they went in your spam box/were automatically deleted by the spam handling in your mail client, or you got them, ignored their import and are now claiming that they were never received. In all cases, it raises a maintenance issue against all your caches.

 

Whatever the reason, the deed is done and the cache archived. Whining about it isn't going to change anything, just get real, get on with your life and go uplift the cache.

 

You also say that that patch of wood is unique care to expand on that? I know the area as a friend lives nearby and have spent more than a few happy evenings in The Romper.

Link to comment

 

Would you like to be going about your business and have an Armed Response Unit pointing guns at you?

 

Been there, done that, was reported for carrying a camera tripod... it was claimed to be a gun! Not an issue really, unless the geocachers are actually carrying firearms.

 

It seems very odd that you and only you failed to get the emails form the GMP about the requirement to relocate your cache as it fell in the exclusion zone.

 

I have received an email from GMP today, that wasn't the problem here as it was not being sent directly from a GMP email address, it was emails sent through Groundspeak.

 

Dave says that he has evidence fro Groundspeak the the emails were sent, so either your ISP is dropping email silently, they went to an account you no longer check, they went in your spam box/were automatically deleted by the spam handling in your mail client, or you got them, ignored their import and are now claiming that they were never received. In all cases, it raises a maintenance issue against all your caches.

 

Dave may have the evidence they were sent through the geocaching website, but does that show they actually left the server or were correctly routed? The email account used is my main one, which is checked regularly, spam is in extremely low volumes so is also checked. It has been the only email address used for geocaching since I first joined. The weekly geocaching email arrives without problem, pocket queries arrive fine... but I have not had any contact emails from Groundspeak/geocaching for April or March, other than the weekly email and pocket queries.

 

As it stands, their is no maintenance issue raised as a result.

 

You also say that that patch of wood is unique care to expand on that? I know the area as a friend lives nearby and have spent more than a few happy evenings in The Romper.

 

You should know the wood then, it is made up of trees that are still relatively young, quite tall but also very narrow in the trunk and there are no obvious places to hide a cache as no holes have formed around the roots... as to the cache hide, I'm not letting that slip, as it may be re-used if a suitable location is found.

Link to comment

Would you like to be going about your business and have an Armed Response Unit pointing guns at you?

Been there, done that, was reported for carrying a camera tripod... it was claimed to be a gun! Not an issue really, unless the geocachers are actually carrying firearms.

An ARU is always an issue. And it does help not to pee the Old Bill off too much.

 

Dave says that he has evidence fro Groundspeak the the emails were sent, so either your ISP is dropping email silently, they went to an account you no longer check, they went in your spam box/were automatically deleted by the spam handling in your mail client, or you got them, ignored their import and are now claiming that they were never received. In all cases, it raises a maintenance issue against all your caches.

Dave may have the evidence they were sent through the geocaching website, but does that show they actually left the server

Earlier post from him says that their are Sever records of teh emails being sent.

 

I know from my own servers that evidence of successful sending is not evidence that the email has been correctly received. All that can be said is that they were sent to the MX host for your email domain, what that then does with them is not Groundspeak's problem.

As it stands, their is no maintenance issue raised as a result.

If you aren't getting contact emails from Groundspeak, then there does become a maintenance issue, as you may well miss NM/SBA logs and reviewer emails.

 

as to the cache hide, I'm not letting that slip, as it may be re-used if a suitable location is found.

I've seen photographs of the hide, and never got round to a further attempt at finding it after my DNF back in August.

Link to comment

Declaration of interests:

 

1) Yes, I regard Badger as a friend

2) I had one of my caches archived recently and it appeared at that point that I received no notice. It later transpired that the reviewer had, in good faith, placed a note on the cache and for some reason the notification didn't reach my inbox. I have had no reports from anyone else that email has not reached me. Groundspeak email is flaky. Fact.

3) I'm not sure that the exclusion zone is a bad idea. I have a cache about 100m outside it and provided I am contacted, if it's felt to be a security threat I will archive it or move it further away.

Link to comment

 

Again, read my posts... the issue is the LACK OF COMMUNICATION from the Groundspeak/reviewers before archiving the cache.

 

Being of the genous 'blunt speaker' - may I respectfully suggest it's not the words "lack of communication" that are in question - but your total inability to comprehend the gravity of your rather immature actions; or in reallity, your non actions.

 

Just put your hands up (pun intended) and admit - your response was totally unjustified and does put geocaching members of the public , in a very embarrassing , if not DANGEROUS situation.

Beside that - the more you protest - the bigger twit you are seen to be ..... Move on -

Nice one Rutson .. Badger needs all the friends he can get at the moment :D:D

Edited by The Syllogiser
Link to comment

 

Again, read my posts... the issue is the LACK OF COMMUNICATION from the Groundspeak/reviewers before archiving the cache.

 

Being of the genous 'blunt speaker' - may I respectfully suggest it's not the words "lack of communication" that are in question - but your total inability to comprehend the gravity of your rather immature actions; or in reallity, your non actions.

 

Just put your hands up (pun intended) and admit - your response was totally unjustified and does put geocaching members of the public , in a very embarrassing , if not DANGEROUS situation.

Beside that - the more you protest - the bigger twit you are seen to be ..... Move on -

Nice one Rutson .. Badger needs all the friends he can get at the moment :D:D

 

As we are speaking bluntly, you are a typical Forum Troll, why don't you go back under your bridge where all good Trolls should be...

 

I understand the need and the reasoning for the exclusion zone, that is not the issue, it is the fact Groundspeak or their representatives did not successfully communicate with the cache owner bere jumping in feet first and leaving incorrect accusations on the cache page.

 

The cache and original placement of the cache were well within the guidelines, and still are. Had I received the contacts regarding the imminent exclusion zone I would have removed and archived the cache, that is not in question.

 

 

I now realise once again why I stopped using the forums so much, it was because of the keyboard warriors such as yourself! And I don't need to add a silly rolling eyes emoticon to disguise a sarcastic comment.

Link to comment

 

As we are speaking bluntly, you are a typical Forum Troll, why don't you go back under your bridge where all good Trolls should be...

 

I now realise once again why I stopped using the forums so much, it was because of the keyboard warriors such as yourself! And I don't need to add a silly rolling eyes emoticon to disguise a sarcastic comment.

 

May I once again dare to suggest - EVIDENCE = typical ? egh ? where ?

 

and why you don't post on forums is maybe because you antagonise quite mild mannered forum members with your comments about your silly actions and reasons, that are bound to get slapped down .....

 

trip trap trip trap .......... get real and grow up .......... trip trap trip trap

Link to comment

Evidence, look up and read your responses... Deliberately confrontational, using capitals to shout, being rude to others... All typical behaviour of forum trolls.

 

You did make me laugh about getting slapped down, were you a comedian before you retired?

Link to comment

 

As we are speaking bluntly, you are a typical Forum Troll, why don't you go back under your bridge where all good Trolls should be...

 

I now realise once again why I stopped using the forums so much, it was because of the keyboard warriors such as yourself! And I don't need to add a silly rolling eyes emoticon to disguise a sarcastic comment.

 

May I once again dare to suggest - EVIDENCE = typical ? egh ? where ?

 

and why you don't post on forums is maybe because you antagonise quite mild mannered forum members with your comments about your silly actions and reasons, that are bound to get slapped down .....

 

trip trap trip trap .......... get real and grow up .......... trip trap trip trap

 

Good God, bad day at work pal?

 

Badger, it's clear some people aren't reading your posts, or if they are don't quite understand. I'd ignore them - you argue well and I haven't seen any evidence of antagonism.

 

Reviewer: is this a GMP only initiative, or is this being/has this been rolled out further?

Edited by tiiiim
Link to comment

I might be being naive, but I do tend to believe that Badger did not receive the e-mail, or at the very least was unaware of the e-mail. I don't believe that he's telling lies, as proposed by our logical friend. Why should he bother lying anyway?

But can we please move on from the argument about Badger's cache warning? The cache is now archived so it won't be encouraging people to break the exclusion zone rules.

Link to comment
Not sure why they would need any legal basis?
Because in this country the police have to operate within the law and within the powers vested in them by parliament.
I assume they have also approached other listing sites to make the same request.
The way I read it, it wasn't a request. I saw the words "imposed" and "banned". The police can't ban anything they choose to, they can only do so if it is against the law, and they don't set the law, they enforce it.

 

There isn't a prevention of geocaching act so they can't be using that. It seems likely they are using prevention of terrorism, but it has to be seen to be reasonable and proportionate, they don't have carte blanche to do whatever they like. In this case it probably is reasonable and proportionate.

Rgds, Andy

Edited by Amberel
Link to comment
... lets just list them on another site that you don't need to get permission for, I hear being said all the time.
I hope it's not something you hear "all the time".

Sadly it is, the last time was just the other day on this very forum. :D

 

My email is working perfectly fine, and is checked regularly. I have received other contact emails from Groundspeak, and copies of those that I have sent. Clearly the fact that I did not receive any regarding this issue is a cause for concern.

 

 

Before claiming people are giving the reviewers a hard time about their actions, you may want to check what was said. You will find that I am not giving the reviewers a hard time about the actions taken, but rather the lack of contact made with the cache owner.

 

Kev, why are you surprised that I'm disappointed? I'm sure most people would be disappointed to find out their cache had been archived without any contact from a reviewer. If you were local, you'd also know that the small wood the cache is in, is unique to the area, and was chosen as it suited the specific container perfectly.

 

Haggis, nobody was stopped at this cache by the Police, or if they were then they never commented on it in their log.

Hi Badger, first of all I had checked what was said, and with past comments on other threads, it was blatantly obvious to me that this thread was going down the route of the reviewer being at the smelly end of the proverbial stick yet again. It was not aimed at just you. You may not see it that way, (perhaps due to it being your cache in question) but I do, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

Secondly, you have stated several times in this thread that people are not reading what you are saying, yet you haven't read what I have said! :D I never stated that anyone visiting your cache was stopped by the police, but I did use a very good example of an airport cache that cachers did get stopped at and it happened recently. I also used personal examples of where I have been stopped and was using them to make a point that it isn't nice being stopped by anyone in an official capacity whilst searching for a cache. I also made the point that Heathrow has been subjected to serious terrorist attacks and attempted attacks from outside of the perimeter fence in the past, making any airport a security risk, inside and outside its perimeter.

 

Thirdly I would like to agree with HH, I don't really see any reason why anyone should be wanting to lie on here, although I do think the teddy has been on a short flying lesson?

 

Last of all, the name of the cache in question starts with PROHIBITED LOCATION!, does that not say that you perhaps knew when placing it that it may have caused issues??

Edited by Haggis Hunter
Link to comment

 

Last of all, the name of the cache in question starts with PROHIBITED LOCATION!, does that not say that you perhaps knew when placing it that it may have caused issues??

 

 

Having found this cache it did not start with that when I found it although that was in 2007. I think someone has recently changed its name, maybe Deci?

 

 

Edit to add: just checking in my found database on GSAK and this one had the same description Tumtum tree. So it looks like to be Deci and not the cache owner.

Edited by gushoneybun
Link to comment

I never stated that anyone visiting your cache was stopped by the police, but I did use a very good example of an airport cache that cachers did get stopped at and it happened recently. I also used personal examples of where I have been stopped and was using them to make a point that it isn't nice being stopped by anyone in an official capacity whilst searching for a cache. I also made the point that Heathrow has been subjected to serious terrorist attacks and attempted attacks from outside of the perimeter fence in the past, making any airport a security risk, inside and outside its perimeter.

 

Apologies, I did indeed misread your comments.

 

Last of all, the name of the cache in question starts with PROHIBITED LOCATION!, does that not say that you perhaps knew when placing it that it may have caused issues??

 

The Prohibited Location was added by the reviewer at the time they archived the cache, not sure it was really needed, but it was their choice to add that to the cache title.

Link to comment

Last of all, the name of the cache in question starts with PROHIBITED LOCATION!, does that not say that you perhaps knew when placing it that it may have caused issues??

 

The Prohibited Location was added by the reviewer at the time they archived the cache, not sure it was really needed, but it was their choice to add that to the cache title.

That is to aid the review process in case someone places a cache nearby in the future. Your cache will show up on a nearby list and the "Prohibited Location" tag helps to flag an issue to the reviewer.

Link to comment

This is currently a Greater Manchester Police initiative. But please note we have had a cacher stopped and challenged by the Police based at a International Airport. Even though the cache was miles from the perimeter of Airport. The reason they had set up a Airport Watch Scheme and the person was reported by a member of this. The location being classified as AT RISK, due to the fact it is under the flight path [which happens to dog leg into the Airport]

 

There have also been issues with caches placed near to but not next to the Boundary of Nuclear Power Stations. In one case the cache location was nearly a KM away, but the Nuclear Constabulary did not feel happy with the location of the cache, as it was a area they regularly patrolled.

 

I changed the name so as to flag up the location, in case another cacher tried placing a cache nearby. Whilst a proper map of the Exclusion zone was set up. Allowing any cache location to be flagged up if it falls within the Exclusion Zone. It was done as a extra check, not as any sort of attack against the Cache Owner. I actioned the cache upon reading the email, but it was several days before I had time to set up the mapping with Graculus, ask the GAGB to add the Exclusion Zone to the GLAD. And post the news about it to 3 separate forums.

 

Between actioning the cache and the rest of the actions. I attended 2 events [including one I Hosted], found some caches [which is rare for me, including some whilst not at a event (even rarer)], cared for and arranged care for my wife whilst I was at the events. So the addition of the Prohibited Location to the cache name was a quick fix to flag up the location, and prevent mistakes.

 

Also please remember the Police have finite resources, most of the time they are stretched beyond belief. But when a member of the public reports suspicious behaviour near to a AT RISK target, they have to quickly respond. By applying the exclusion zone, we help to reduce those incidents.

 

FYI I've had to deal with several caches that caused a member of the public to report suspicious behaviour near to Manchester Airport, these were handled on a quiet word basis, of the Officer concerned. But because of geocachers blatant disregard for discretion, this quiet word process. Was blown out of the water, and more senior officers at the GMP decided to impose a Exclusion Zone.

 

So basically a personal policy of trying to allow caches near to the airport, has come back to kick me in the face. Because of the actions of unthinking geocachers. And it seems all my actions to avoid confrontation with GMP are being castigated. Given that I supposedly was wrong to Archive a cache, where I had evidence a Police Officer had requested it's relocation twice [given that all the other cache owners received the emails sent to them by this person]. Added a Flag to the cache Name due to being aware I would not be able to set up the tools for Reviewers and community members to know about the exclusion zone immediately. The original map I was provided with, was a Geocaching Google Map with the zone added. As it was in Bit Map format, it was not workable as a tool at that time. Which is why there was a delay in presenting a workable map of the Zone, So I followed a SOP for other similar cases and flagged up the area using the cache name.

 

Some you win some you loose. But as the saying goes you can't please everyone. I took the actions I deemed appropriate, and fully stand by them.

 

 

Deci

Link to comment

...And it seems all my actions to avoid confrontation with GMP are being castigated. Given that I supposedly was wrong to Archive a cache, where I had evidence a Police Officer had requested it's relocation twice [given that all the other cache owners received the emails sent to them by this person]....

As far as I can tell, there's been no castigating of reviewers in this thread; in fact, quite a bit of support. There was some grumbling by Badger, who for reasons unknown did not appear to have received the warning e-mail and so was justifiably indignant to have a cache seemingly archived without consultation. The aggressive and castigating posts were directed at him, and only served to increase his indignation: although we seem to have got over that dispute. Hopefully.

 

So I don't know how you get the impression that you're being castigated or that people think that the response to the GMP request was "wrong". There are a few questions about the future of such exclusion zones, and their legal standing, but that's for later.

Link to comment

I never stated that anyone visiting your cache was stopped by the police, but I did use a very good example of an airport cache that cachers did get stopped at and it happened recently. I also used personal examples of where I have been stopped and was using them to make a point that it isn't nice being stopped by anyone in an official capacity whilst searching for a cache. I also made the point that Heathrow has been subjected to serious terrorist attacks and attempted attacks from outside of the perimeter fence in the past, making any airport a security risk, inside and outside its perimeter.

 

Apologies, I did indeed misread your comments.

 

Last of all, the name of the cache in question starts with PROHIBITED LOCATION!, does that not say that you perhaps knew when placing it that it may have caused issues??

 

The Prohibited Location was added by the reviewer at the time they archived the cache, not sure it was really needed, but it was their choice to add that to the cache title.

Apology accepted and I stand corrected, as I didn't realise the reviewers changed cache names so that it allows new caches to flag up.

Link to comment

Nothing new here! When I placed GCJQ6Q MIATBX Final Approach back in June 2004 it was after consultation with GMP at Manchester Airport. As given in the cache listing the cache was initally set up in a location next to the perimeter fence whilst I arranged a visit to it with GMP and Airport Security. Only the GMP Inspector at the time had previously heard of Geocaching and having made the visit the cache was retrieved having served its educational purpose! At the time we discussed their exclusion zone of 100m extension from all perimeter fences and around aircraft approach/take off corridors. The cache was eventually placed away from any airport security concerns, as was explained at the time also to avoid any unnessary occurances of Geocachers staring down the barrel of a gun whilst attempting to find the cache in such a sensitive area!

Link to comment

Yeh, I know HH .. I'm sure Badger realised he was getting his ribs tickled - not a poke in the eye - from me -

Deci is TOOOOO nice a guy .. he goes to excessive lengths to satify cachers .. some of whom, fail to recipricate in a like manner.

I was interested in this thread, for several reasons / local caches / professional involment when I was working - and being on the 'receiving end' very recently !

 

The massive changes in these Laws since I was involved, are quite scarry for members of the public. (sorry) I my day, we were trained to give three clear and separate verbal warnings, if not, a 'double tap' ... Seems today, you grab an innocent passenger on a train, and put 7 rounds into their head at zero range ! !

 

So, back to caching SAFELY ........ and SENSIBLY .... and RESPONSIBLY .. and heeding the reviewer's guidance ...... and walk over bridges quietly ... LOL

 

...And it seems all my actions to avoid confrontation with GMP are being castigated. Given that I supposedly was wrong to Archive a cache, where I had evidence a Police Officer had requested it's relocation twice [given that all the other cache owners received the emails sent to them by this person]....

As far as I can tell, there's been no castigating of reviewers in this thread; in fact, quite a bit of support. There was some grumbling by Badger, who for reasons unknown did not appear to have received the warning e-mail and so was justifiably indignant to have a cache seemingly archived without consultation. The aggressive and castigating posts were directed at him, and only served to increase his indignation: although we seem to have got over that dispute. Hopefully.

 

So I don't know how you get the impression that you're being castigated or that people think that the response to the GMP request was "wrong". There are a few questions about the future of such exclusion zones, and their legal standing, but that's for later.

Link to comment

Not being near Manchester, this has little bearing on me, and I'm not emotionally or otherwise invested in the outcome at all. That said...

 

<snip>

 

Please do not consider this to be a joke, the security level at the Airport is High. Given that the level of Fire Arms Officers based at the Airport is about 60%, that means there is a extremely higher risk of Armed Officers attending a report of suspicious behaviour. Given the Global nature of the hobby, that means there is a higher risk of someone with no or limited command of English being challenged by these Officers. Raising the risk of a tragic indecent happening, which was a concern of the Met Police Officer. When the London Met Agreement was set up.

 

<snip>

 

^^ This is enough reason alone to have a self-policed exclusion zone for caches. Regardless of what you think of government or police policies, or how they enforce them - not to mention the current climate of fear and push to report your neighbours.

 

However Kehotee and Amberel raised some valid and interesting points about the legal basis for 'prevention of geocaches' - if I can call it that.

 

As a layman who has spent much time researching legal statutes and using them as a defence against actions of the local authorities on occassion, I'm very interested in seeing debate on the legal aspect.

 

I'm not saying they would (I'm aware there are cachers who are police officers), but if the police authorities were to begin arbitrarily setting up exclusion zones wherever they felt like it. Specifically and solely targetting the activity of geocaching - using only "prevention of terrorism" as a justification - would there be a legal challenge? And would anyone reviewer or not, be prepared to mount a legal defence to a challenge in court?

 

Treat it as a thought-experiment.

Link to comment

I can't see where the legal status of all this should even be thought about

1: The UK police have said do not put caches here Groundspeak and the reviewers will rightly not go against this

2: Would anyone place or retain a cache where someone may get shot or spend a loooong time talking to the Anti Terrorist branch

 

The only question is were Groundspeak 'out of line' with how they handled it... Maybe but I would rather have an upset cacher than a dead one

 

my last point then I will shut up is why do we moan when they do nothing to combat terrorism then complain when they do

Edited by fuzzybears
Link to comment

...then complain when they do

Who's complaining? But it's always worth considering whether measures are proportionate and legal. The answer in this case may be "yes", but it doesn't mean we should just accept every restriction in all cases.

It might suit the police to simply ban all geocaches in Britain, to save all the inconvenience and expense. Would that be fine too? If we objected, could they point to a law that allows them to enforce the ban?

Link to comment

...then complain when they do

Who's complaining? But it's always worth considering whether measures are proportionate and legal. The answer in this case may be "yes", but it doesn't mean we should just accept every restriction in all cases.

It might suit the police to simply ban all geocaches in Britain, to save all the inconvenience and expense. Would that be fine too? If we objected, could they point to a law that allows them to enforce the ban?

 

Sorry I thought we were talking about the extended ban at Manchester airport and the cache owners complaining about their treatment by the police, Groundspeak and the reviewers.

Link to comment

Sorry I thought we were talking about the extended ban at Manchester airport and the cache owners complaining about their treatment by the police, Groundspeak and the reviewers.

"Cache owners" never complained about their treatment. Badger had a gripe because he didn't appear to have received any warning before his cache was archived. Although we're still not sure how that happened it hardly justifies "why do we moan when they do nothing to combat terrorism then complain when they do". The only reason things got heated was because he was accused of fibbing.

 

Everyone has accepted the current exclusion zone well enough, and accepted that the reviewers have no choice but to enforce it as much as they can. The only complaint was about the way it was administered, and it seems likely that there was simply a technical problem of some sort.

 

But it's quite right to question the validity of any further police "cache exclusion zones" that may appear in the future, rather than wait until it happens and have no plan should we feel that the extent of the zones is excessive.

Link to comment

Last year - a 'similar' situation arose = http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=220605

in a Manchester park. All members of the geocaching community responded quickly and amicably.

 

back to topic real -- When the Anti Terror laws ;) were amended .. very wide ranging powers were given to MANY organisations, including the police.. IMHO , and many others, they went well beyond our normally accepted civil liberties -- but -- in the interests of public safety ! they were passed.

 

We also seem to be getting used to the "in the opinion of the officer" (police) ... and the period of detention without charge, and without adequate evidence, sufficient to convict under this law, is VERY scarry.

I supose we will just have to get used to the "big hammer - small nut to crack" that they use .

 

Maybe - Groundspeak and its local representatives should ENSURE that "critical information"

, like this case, is circulate not only to individuals, but all the community. I know Deci posted it on our local NW forum, and sent appropriate emails, but I feel that the system SHOULD be more robust.

 

Most email systems have a 'check back' method, surely that is not outside Groundspeak's capacity to employ this to ENSURE that all recipients have indeed GOT IT.

It ain't rocket science :anicute:

I would also like to see such a method extended to all mail - so we all know if a member has GOT IT . not just the 'confirm we sent' mail

Edited by The Syllogiser
Link to comment
back to topic real -- When the Anti Terror laws ;) were amended .. very wide ranging powers were given to MANY organisations, including the police.. IMHO , and many others, they went well beyond our normally accepted civil liberties -- but -- in the interests of public safety ! they were passed.

 

We also seem to be getting used to the "in the opinion of the officer" (police) ... and the period of detention without charge, and without adequate evidence, sufficient to convict under this law, is VERY scarry.

I supose we will just have to get used to the "big hammer - small nut to crack" that they use .

I gather that there's some sort of large-scale public consultation taking place today which would allow you to express your opinion on this, and indeed other subjects. :P

Most email systems have a 'check back' method, surely that is not outside Groundspeak's capacity to employ this to ENSURE that all recipients have indeed GOT IT.

It ain't rocket science :anicute:

I would also like to see such a method extended to all mail - so we all know if a member has GOT IT . not just the 'confirm we sent' mail

Actually, in the age of spam filters, it pretty much *is* rocket science. The basic Internet e-mail protocols ensure that mail is delivered to a certain point, but if a downstream spam filter decides to throw it away - an operation which can take place minutes, days, or months after the mail is sent, depending on where in the chain the spam filter runs - there is no realistic way to get that information back to the sender, especially since many spam filters work entirely silently. You can send a letter to someone rich, even by recorded delivery, but if their butler signs for it and then decides not to trouble his Lordship with what appears from the envelope to be spam, his Lordship may never learn that he really did win the Reader's Digest Prize Draw this time. (Yes, I know they're going out of business!)

 

It's true that the quick "e-mail someone via the site" functionality also doesn't give you feedback on those occasions when the sending fails because of an issue which the Internet e-mail protocols would have detected. But that's also a way to reduce "stalking", because to give that information back to the sender while censoring all of the information which might reveal the recipient's identity, is very hard. Keeping information confidential while providing cool functionality is a fine balancing act, as Facebook is only the latest to find out.

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment

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...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...