+Amberel Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I know I can ask my local reviewer, and will if no-one knows the answer, but to avoid pestering him does anyone know if an area marked as "Scheduled monument" carries special requirements such as are attached to an SSSI? Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+drdick&vick Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Quite often come under the jurisdiction of English Heritage Quote Link to comment
+pklong Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Scheduled monuments have very strong legal protection, so I would think carefully before placing a cache near one. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/your-property/planning-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-scheduled-monument/ Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 yes they do Many thanks, I thought as much but wanted to make sure. Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+Graculus Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Caches can be put into SAM's but only with permission. I've a page about it on my resource site (and also in the wiki). We use the MAGIC map to check and there is a very useful link you can also use to check your own locations, MagicMapIt! One problem we do get is 'disagreement' from cachers who use the OS maps and tell us the cache is outside the site boundary. We use the MAGIC map which shows the definitive boundary from the scheduling. Many SAM's have no apparent visible remains but are still scheduled and protected. Here is an example. On Google maps and OS maps there is nothing there but it's the site of the Roman settlement of Ariconium. There is a lot of archaeology underground. Chris Graculus Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Caches can be put into SAM's but only with permission. I've a page about it on my resource site (and also in the wiki). We use the MAGIC map to check and there is a very useful link you can also use to check your own locations, MagicMapIt! Thaks Chris, I had already used the Magic map to establish that the site was a SAM, but that the SAM only covers part of the area. I have now emailed my local reviewer with more specific details. Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Anything which could encourage damage to a SAM should not be allowed, and might even earn you a criminal record. Sadly the American's at Groundspeak HQ don't see this, and abandoned Virtual caches many years ago, and gave us a reincarnation of these called Challenges, these are usually just a BIG joke! Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Anything which could encourage damage to a SAM should not be allowed, and might even earn you a criminal record. I don't think anything I have said suggests I wish to encourage damage to a SAM ! Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Anything which could encourage damage to a SAM should not be allowed, and might even earn you a criminal record. Sadly the American's at Groundspeak HQ don't see this, and abandoned Virtual caches many years ago, and gave us a reincarnation of these called Challenges, these are usually just a BIG joke! Aargh! How many more times! If you want to set a virtual at an ancient monument, you've been able to do this for many, many years. It's called Waymarking. Now, you may not be into Waymarking (or virtuals). That's not relevant; the point is that it covers this activity perfectly well as it's a Groundspeak site which allows people to find, list and/or collect loggable locations such as these, without having to place something physically there. Challenges also allow you to do the same thing, although from what I've seen they're a bit more limited than Waymarks and it's hard to understand what they add that wasn't already there (except a count on Geocaching.com, which doesn't appear for Waymarks for some bizarre reason). (Cue the usual... yeah but I don't like waymarks because you have to use a separate web page and they don't update my geocache found numbers, and I can't be bothered to work out how to set one so they don't count!) Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Andy I was not suggesting you were planning any damage, but as with many caches placed in sensitive areas, some Cachers still think of pulling a rock out of a wall, even if the description says "It's not in the wall" Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Anything which could encourage damage to a SAM should not be allowed, and might even earn you a criminal record. Sadly the American's at Groundspeak HQ don't see this, and abandoned Virtual caches many years ago, and gave us a reincarnation of these called Challenges, these are usually just a BIG joke! Aargh! How many more times! If you want to set a virtual at an ancient monument, you've been able to do this for many, many years. It's called Waymarking. Now, you may not be into Waymarking (or virtuals). That's not relevant; the point is that it covers this activity perfectly well as it's a Groundspeak site which allows people to find, list and/or collect loggable locations such as these, without having to place something physically there. Challenges also allow you to do the same thing, although from what I've seen they're a bit more limited than Waymarks and it's hard to understand what they add that wasn't already there (except a count on Geocaching.com, which doesn't appear for Waymarks for some bizarre reason). (Cue the usual... yeah but I don't like waymarks because you have to use a separate web page and they don't update my geocache found numbers, and I can't be bothered to work out how to set one so they don't count!) I have never been a fan of segregation, Waymarking has nothing to do with Geocaching, as you say, you get no Smiley on your Geocaching profile for any Waymarks undertaken, Therefore, it's a pointless objective. I just love the olden days of WebCam, Locationless and Virtual Caches, bring them back I say, but then again many will disagree and would rather look for a Nano on the bottom of a Dog Poo bin in a park. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I have never been a fan of segregation, Waymarking has nothing to do with Geocaching, as you say, you get no Smiley on your Geocaching profile for any Waymarks undertaken, Therefore, it's a pointless objective. I just love the olden days of WebCam, Locationless and Virtual Caches, bring them back I say, but then again many will disagree and would rather look for a Nano on the bottom of a Dog Poo bin in a park. It's only "pointless" if you are strictly after a geocaching smiley and don't give a (erm, what's the word without getting censored?) about the monument. TBH I don't see a great amount of point in having a geocache at an ancient monument, as there's something of interest at the location already. If you check any listing on geocaching.com it'll probably highlight some local waymarks of the type you purport to be interested in so I think it's all covered. It's better that virtuals and locationless are now on Waymarking so that purist geocachers don't have to filter them out, although it would be nice to have a combined total somewhere. Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 It's better that virtuals and locationless are now on Waymarking so that purist geocachers don't have to filter them out, although it would be nice to have a combined total somewhere. That's always been my point, there is no Smiley, if there was, then it would make more sense, some of the best locations I have visited were Virtuals, and I always thought Locationless were fun, as I use to think for hours about things like, where I'd seen an old fire engine. At last we both are starting to understand a common ground on this. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Yes, I agree that a smiley on your geocaching profile would be nice. But only "nice". There are smileys aplenty in Waymarking anyway, so I'm not that bothered if they don't show on your geocaching profile. To me it's about visiting and collecting the locations, and whether the website is perfectly configured or not comes a distant second. To me at least, the main purpose of a "virtual" (waymark or whatever) is to take you to an interesting spot which you might otherwise overlook, and where a geocache is problematic or superfluous. Where there is a geocache at an Ancient Monument, I find that other visitors often make it awkward to log. I'd rather just have a look at the archaeology and take a few photos rather than try and cover my apparently odd behaviour! Quote Link to comment
+HouseOfDragons Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Why are Earthcaches still allowed to be listed? Surely they fall under the same kind of umbrella as a virtual/waymark/whatever. There's no box to find. Just curious as to how the reasoning goes. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Why are Earthcaches still allowed to be listed? Surely they fall under the same kind of umbrella as a virtual/waymark/whatever. There's no box to find. Just curious as to how the reasoning goes. They were sent to Waymarking (where they belong) but pressure was put to bear on Groundspeak and they were moved back to Geocaching. IIRC there was no reasoning going on. Quote Link to comment
+Amberel Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Why are Earthcaches still allowed to be listed? Surely they fall under the same kind of umbrella as a virtual/waymark/whatever. There's no box to find. Just curious as to how the reasoning goes. My understanding is that Groundspeak obtain some pecuniary advantage by listing EarthCaches. Maybe someone who knows for certain can confirm that (or not, as the case may be)? Rgds, Andy Quote Link to comment
+abanazar Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why are Earthcaches still allowed to be listed? Surely they fall under the same kind of umbrella as a virtual/waymark/whatever. There's no box to find. Just curious as to how the reasoning goes. My understanding is that Groundspeak obtain some pecuniary advantage by listing EarthCaches. Maybe someone who knows for certain can confirm that (or not, as the case may be)? Rgds, Andy There's a similar thread currently running here on the Topics forum, where others' recollections appear to agree with this. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.