Jump to content

War Memorials and Memorials to the Deceased


Deceangi
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

After considerable discussion between the UK & Ireland Reviewers in regards to concerns being raised by a number of community members, over Physical Containers placed on or near to War Memorials or Memorials to the Deceased.

 

We now moving forward require Proof of Permission, where a war memorial or other memorial to the dead is the focal point of a clearly defined precinct, plaza, memorial garden or like surrounding area. Physical caches or physical cache stages placed within that surrounding area require specific written permission of the relevant custodial authority

 

Definition of the "Surrounding Area

 

Any area specifically set aside for the Memorial, which is clearly defined and usually forming a Remembrance Garden/Area. So the area surrounding a War Memorial in a Town Square where a War Memorial is located would not fall within that definition. A example being the Cenotaph in London, which normally has traffic passing on either side of it.

 

This approach to Reviewing Caches located within the Precinct of Memorials to the Deceased,is exactly the same as for Church Yard/Cemeteries which has been in place for 2.25 years within the UK.

 

Caches in Such locations Published before the Date of this post have been Grandfathered In, subject to the usual rider. That of any Update of Coordinates, Is considered to have broken the Grandfathered In clause, and the new location if within the Precinct will then require Written Permission.

 

To avoid any confusion, We are NOT BANNING caches located within the Precincts of Memorial to the Deceased. Simply moving to a Proof of Permission to Publish

 

Deceangi

Link to comment

While I understand the sensitivity of caching (and not going to the toilet) near a war memorial, in my experience folk are far more upset by caches on dog mess bins and the public more concerned by caches near children's playgrounds. Can I ask if these locations are under 'blanket proof of permission required' review too? If not I suggest they're looked into as I honestly feel they both have more potential for harm and distress than a micro in the corner of a memorial's surrounding garden.

 

On a similar note, I've used a drain beside a memorial to the fallen of the Battle of Chalgrove, which took place early in the Civil War (1642) to hide a (now archived) cache - In the picture below would the whole green (actually a triangular road junction island) be classed as the memorial's surroundings, only the area within the fence (in which case would a micro on the fence be ok or not) or is the Civil War long enough ago not to be an issue - assuming there was no fence and a handy gap below the monument? (There isn't, but there could be.)

 

1096574.jpg

 

Not trying to cause trouble, just looking for extra clarity. Thank you.

Link to comment

How much extra clarity do you need? The OP is pretty clear. All you are asking about is specific about that particular area - In short, if you want it listing on this site it's down to the reviewer to make the call - and if they think it's required will ask for 'Proof of Permission'

If this upsets you then you have three choices

1. Get the permission.

2. Don't set the cache.

3. List it on another site.

 

This is nothing more than ensuring a bit of common courtesy has been excersised. As for Hooray for consultation, perhaps what you really mean is Hooray for common courtesy.

Link to comment

SP the Memorial is Clearly Fenced off, so in my opinion if I was Reviewing a cache there. The Precinct of the Memorial is the area inside and including the Railings. Outside of that is not a dedicated precinct to the memorial nor is it a Garden of Remembrance.

 

If you ever tried to submit a cache close to a Playground or School. you'd find that you would be requested to re-locate it. Caches close to, never mind in Playgrounds, tend to producer a higher percentage of arguments off CO's than a lot of other reasons.

 

As for consultation, please tell me the total percentage of active UK Geocachers who visit any of multiple UK Geocaching forums. Remembering that at least 2 have closed due to a lack of usage. So sorry I'd say that however we tried to consult with the community, we'd be very lucky to reach less than 1% of Active Geocachers in the UK. This forum alone has a lot less than 1% of active UK cachers using it. *

 

Now in future if someone can produce a way in which the UK Reviewers can send a mail shot to 76%+ of all active UK Cachers, with a facility for them to give immediate feedback. Then that's when fair consultation would be able to take place.

 

Sorry 2 or 3 negative voices, only goes to makes a vocal extreme minority.

 

Deci

 

*There are over 5,000 UK cachers with over 200 finds, there is less than 50 UK cachers who regularly use this forum. The GAGB forum is possibly in the same situation. One of the most popular UK Regional forums has possibly less than 20 regular users.

Link to comment

Now in future if someone can produce a way in which the UK Reviewers can send a mail shot to 76%+ of all active UK Cachers, with a facility for them to give immediate feedback. Then that's when fair consultation would be able to take place.

 

Well GS have our email address and home coords from our profile.

 

It's GS who require the Feedback, so I presume Get Satisfaction would/should do it...

 

Maybe we could rename it Get Lip Service.... :laughing:

Link to comment

I have to admit to being gob-smacked about some of the comments on this thread, especially today on Armistice Day of all days!

 

The reviewers, who are all volunteers don't forget and give their time freely to help us play this game, have made a new and rather sensible rule. The rule doesn't stop caches in this area, rather it seeks written permissions to make their lives easier when reviewing - what's wrong with that?.

 

We are playing a game and games have rules - what's the problem with that; can't we all just grow up a little please?!!!

 

:laughing: Rant over now - I'll sit back and await the torrent for I know it will now flow!

Link to comment

 

The reviewers, who are all volunteers don't forget and give their time freely to help us play this game, have made a new and rather sensible rule. The rule doesn't stop caches in this area, rather it seeks written permissions to make their lives easier when reviewing - what's wrong with that?.

 

:laughing: Rant over now - I'll sit back and await the torrent for I know it will now flow!

 

I'll also continue the torrent by saying here, here.

 

The reviewers are genuinely mad. Why else would someone volunteer to be a cache reviewer with the amount of armchair sniping that goes on?

Link to comment

I have to admit to being gob-smacked about some of the comments on this thread, especially today on Armistice Day of all days!

 

The reviewers, who are all volunteers don't forget and give their time freely to help us play this game, have made a new and rather sensible rule. The rule doesn't stop caches in this area, rather it seeks written permissions to make their lives easier when reviewing - what's wrong with that?.

 

We are playing a game and games have rules - what's the problem with that; can't we all just grow up a little please?!!!

 

:laughing: Rant over now - I'll sit back and await the torrent for I know it will now flow!

 

At least there has now been some discussion. As I have made clear I agree with this guideline however it was imposed rather than consulted. I believe as a community we should have some input on local decisions. OK so only around 1% use the forums, anyone can use it if they choose to ignore the chance then fine at least they would have the opportunity.

 

It's not just about this guideline, its about previous ones which have been imposed locally without any consultation. The GAGB is then just expected to change its guidelines to suit.

 

However the GAGB provides guidelines that are available for the use of multiple listing sites not just Geocaching.com. It would be wrong in my opinion for the GAGB guidelines to be changed at the whim of the Groundspeak reviewers without any discussion. The UK reviewers refer people to the GAGB guidelines (and Landowner database) as part of the reviewing process.

 

Do you really think we would be right to change a guideline just because a reviewer on one listing site says so?

Link to comment

 

The reviewers, who are all volunteers don't forget and give their time freely to help us play this game, have made a new and rather sensible rule. The rule doesn't stop caches in this area, rather it seeks written permissions to make their lives easier when reviewing - what's wrong with that?.

 

:laughing: Rant over now - I'll sit back and await the torrent for I know it will now flow!

 

I'll also continue the torrent by saying here, here.

 

The reviewers are genuinely mad. Why else would someone volunteer to be a cache reviewer with the amount of armchair sniping that goes on?

 

In general I support the reviewers, I am not sniping at what they have done, more that on this occasion I was displeased with the way it was done without consultation or even a more expansive explanation.

Link to comment

 

The reviewers, who are all volunteers don't forget and give their time freely to help us play this game, have made a new and rather sensible rule. The rule doesn't stop caches in this area, rather it seeks written permissions to make their lives easier when reviewing - what's wrong with that?.

 

:laughing: Rant over now - I'll sit back and await the torrent for I know it will now flow!

 

I'll also continue the torrent by saying here, here.

 

The reviewers are genuinely mad. Why else would someone volunteer to be a cache reviewer with the amount of armchair sniping that goes on?

 

In general I support the reviewers, I am not sniping at what they have done, more that on this occasion I was displeased with the way it was done without consultation or even a more expansive explanation.

 

Rather than;

 

Hooray for consultation!

 

Vocal minority rules.

 

Maybe it would have been better for you to offer a more expansive explanation of your objections. :)

Link to comment

 

*There are over 5,000 UK cachers with over 200 finds, there is less than 50 UK cachers who regularly use this forum. The GAGB forum is possibly in the same situation. One of the most popular UK Regional forums has possibly less than 20 regular users.

 

That's quite a low estimate, there will always be lurkers who read forums and don't contribute.

I put your communication on the Yorkshire site which has had 76 users logged into the website in the last 7 days.

 

As the game grew, local forums were always going to appear; you've done a good job in the past of posting key information to as many as you can. Perhaps the reviewers could investigate an alternative way to converse with the community.

e.g. a UK Geocaching Reviewers fan group on facebook

Link to comment

Beware of rule creep! B) I appreciate Dave's post / reasoning, but am generally against any extra rules, before you know it there's lots and lots of them which in principle are individually probably a good idea, but taken collectively, it's an ever-increasing tide. Wonder what the Highways Agency think of magnetic caches on road signs, for instance? :)

Edited by PopUpPirate
Link to comment

Beware of rule creep! :) I appreciate Dave's post / reasoning, but am generally against any extra rules, before you know it there's lots and lots of them which in principle are individually probably a good idea, but taken collectively, it's an ever-increasing tide.

...

Well put, and I completely agree. Whilst I appreciate that the reviewers are simply trying to keep the reputation of caching respectable, it's all beginning to get very complicated.

 

I'm tempted to place a cache in a memorial garden (without permission) that's a stone's throw from a railway station, and also inside a nature reserve which is also an SSSI! B) That's probably the largest number of UK-specific rules that can be broken by a single cache...

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

Beware of rule creep! :) I appreciate Dave's post / reasoning, but am generally against any extra rules, before you know it there's lots and lots of them which in principle are individually probably a good idea, but taken collectively, it's an ever-increasing tide.

...

Well put, and I completely agree. Whilst I appreciate that the reviewers are simply trying to keep the reputation of caching respectable, it's all beginning to get very complicated.

 

I'm tempted to place a cache in a memorial garden (without permission) that's a stone's throw from a railway station, and also inside a nature reserve which is also an SSSI! B) That's probably the largest number of UK-specific rules that can be broken by a single cache...

 

LOL, is there a school nearby?

Link to comment

Some further thought on getting users opinions before implementing location specific guidelines.......

 

Open a thread to discuss the proposed guideline, then ask Groundspeak to include a link to it in the weekly newsletter.

 

That has links to the nearest events and new caches so at a guess it would be flexible enough to put UK specific information in?

Link to comment

Beware of rule creep! :) I appreciate Dave's post / reasoning, but am generally against any extra rules, before you know it there's lots and lots of them which in principle are individually probably a good idea, but taken collectively, it's an ever-increasing tide.

...

Well put, and I completely agree. Whilst I appreciate that the reviewers are simply trying to keep the reputation of caching respectable, it's all beginning to get very complicated.

 

I'm tempted to place a cache in a memorial garden (without permission) that's a stone's throw from a railway station, and also inside a nature reserve which is also an SSSI! B) That's probably the largest number of UK-specific rules that can be broken by a single cache...

 

Needs a can of Sardines

Link to comment

Beware of rule creep! B) I appreciate Dave's post / reasoning, but am generally against any extra rules, before you know it there's lots and lots of them which in principle are individually probably a good idea, but taken collectively, it's an ever-increasing tide. Wonder what the Highways Agency think of magnetic caches on road signs, for instance? :)

 

If cachers placed caches with thought then there wouldn't be any need for rule creep... Dave and team are only responding to reactions from landowners about caches that must not have had permission to be there or that cachers were disrespecting the area.

And in the general flow of this thread why should we need a discussion about something that we should be doing anyway.. All caches have 'permission' to be there the only change is you have to prove it

We are like foxes.. while we played in the countryside we were mostly ignored but as we become more urbanised we will upset more and more people hence more and more rules.

if you eat the chickens expect a few fences to be put up

Link to comment

Beware of rule creep! :) I appreciate Dave's post / reasoning, but am generally against any extra rules, before you know it there's lots and lots of them which in principle are individually probably a good idea, but taken collectively, it's an ever-increasing tide.

...

Well put, and I completely agree. Whilst I appreciate that the reviewers are simply trying to keep the reputation of caching respectable, it's all beginning to get very complicated.

 

I'm tempted to place a cache in a memorial garden (without permission) that's a stone's throw from a railway station, and also inside a nature reserve which is also an SSSI! B) That's probably the largest number of UK-specific rules that can be broken by a single cache...

 

Ermm the Requirement for Proof of Permission for Network Rail Properties, is specifically that "Property owned by Network Rail" a stones throw from such a Property does not come under the requirement. I've within the last few days published a cache a stones throw away from a Railway Station, in fact right across the road from the station Building. And the CO did not have to produce proof of Permission.

 

And please remember that requirement was put in place due to the reaction of the Authorities in London, to several caches on Network Rail Property without Permission. So the UK Reviewers did not have much of a choice over applying the Proof of Permission requirement! Something that seems to be ignored every time this is brought up! If you wish to negotiate a Blanket Geocaching Permission with Network Rail, please do so, as it would stop all the moans about it.

 

Deci

Link to comment

Dave and team are only responding to reactions from landowners about caches that must not have had permission to be there or that cachers were disrespecting the area.

Just posting to clarify the comment above. If the OP is read carfully it will be seen that this is nothing to do with "reactions from landowners".

After considerable discussion between the UK & Ireland Reviewers in regards to concerns being raised by a number of community members, over Physical Containers placed on or near to War Memorials or Memorials to the Deceased.

So how large a majority or small a minority is this "number of community members"?

Link to comment

Dave and team are only responding to reactions from landowners about caches that must not have had permission to be there or that cachers were disrespecting the area.

Just posting to clarify the comment above. If the OP is read carfully it will be seen that this is nothing to do with "reactions from landowners".

After considerable discussion between the UK & Ireland Reviewers in regards to concerns being raised by a number of community members, over Physical Containers placed on or near to War Memorials or Memorials to the Deceased.

So how large a majority or small a minority is this "number of community members"?

 

The first bit of my post was in reply to PUP's creeping rules in general sorry if I wasn't clear but your second quote shows that cachers were not happy with a placement and whether it's a minority there must have been enough to make the reviewers sit up and look at the problem

Link to comment

but your second quote shows that cachers were not happy with a placement and whether it's a minority there must have been enough to make the reviewers sit up and look at the problem

 

So how many cachers does it take to "make the reviewers sit up"?

 

In contrast on this same thread it has been suggested that consultation on here with the wider community is not worthy of consideration due to only a minority of that community visiting these forums.

Link to comment

Dave and team are only responding to reactions from landowners about caches that must not have had permission to be there or that cachers were disrespecting the area.

At least you're in the loop and know the circumstances that led to this rule being brought in. The rest of us have just had to guess.

 

No... but I am sure that the Reviewing team don't make up the rules as they go along they are reacting to a complaint (s) and my post was general in reply to PUP and not directly about this latest tightening...

But to get back to this latest 'problem' As I said if you have permission to place the cache how much extra effort is it to get proof If everyone 'did it right' there would be no need to tighten any rules

Link to comment
SP the Memorial is Clearly Fenced off, so in my opinion if I was Reviewing a cache there. The Precinct of the Memorial is the area inside and including the Railings. Outside of that is not a dedicated precinct to the memorial nor is it a Garden of Remembrance.
Thank you for the clarification.

 

Should've just asked kewfriend. He's the railings expert on such perimeter matters. B)

Link to comment

There are over 5,000 UK cachers with over 200 finds, there is less than 50 UK cachers who regularly use this forum. The GAGB forum is possibly in the same situation. One of the most popular UK Regional forums has possibly less than 20 regular users.

 

Hooray....I've made a top 50 list at last. B)

Not that numbers matter!

Link to comment

Ermm the Requirement for Proof of Permission for Network Rail Properties, is specifically that "Property owned by Network Rail" a stones throw from such a Property does not come under the requirement.

OK...

The cache will be in a memorial garden (without permission) that's on land owned by Network Rail and managed by London Parks, between a school and a children's playground and also inside a nature reserve which is also an SSSI. That one should surely take the Reviewer's annual "worst UK rules-breaker" award?

Mind you, it'd be worth an award for the effort in finding such a spot (if, indeed, any exists)! :unsure:

Link to comment

I am sure that this will not cause any problems at all.

 

As they do say for all caches "Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager for all caches.

 

So all that needs to be done is add those details as a reviewer note to the cache when you submit it.

 

 

4.3. Guidelines for Hiding a Geocache

 

It is imperative that you read and understand the Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines prior to placing each and every geocache. Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager.

 

Once you are prepared, fill out our online form to report a new cache. This is a free service. Login is required.

 

Only caches of a non-commercial nature can be posted through this site. If you wish to create a commercial cache or promotion, please contact us first. Caches perceived of a commercial nature will not be published.

 

First time? Learn how to hide a geocache and review some of the considerations.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=78

Link to comment

just been reading all the comments on memorials etc and having done quite a few church micros in the last few days and finding at least one actually hidden behind a grave stone i dont think, for all my opinion is worth ,that its respectful to put caches actually in grave yards. there is many miles of countryside around without doing so, i for one would not be best pleased if i found a cache on or near the grave of one of my family! surely the same must apply to memorials? i think that the reviewers do a very god job and if we were all sensible there would be none of these problems. :D:anitongue:

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...