Some London & other caches disabled for the summer

[+MartyBartfast]

 

It's just as well Groundspeak don't close down caches for the Tour de France isn't it! And has anyone worked out yet what happens to a plane shot down by a guided missile?? Wouldn't it achieve just what a terrorist would want by falling on a densely populated area or Olympic arena??

 

Chris

 

In terms of being a potential target for a terrorist attack, the Tour isn't even in the same league as the Olympics, and nothing else is anywhere close except perhaps the football world cup.

 

As for the missile deployments, I had the same thought too. Apparently similar measures were used for both Beijing and Athens.

[team tisri]

Amazing nobody bothered to worry about any of this during the Jubilee ... Obviously Seattle are so out of step,they did not even realise there were millions more on the streets the past few days

 

But then neither did the Govt put mobile ground to air missile bases on the top of residential tower blocks, or move a significant proportion of it's attack jets closer to London, or stick a Helicopter support vessel full of Marines on the Thames, or ..., for the Jubilee.

 

Face it folks, if anyone's paranoid or over reacting it's the powers that be (i.e. The Govt, The Met, LOCOG, The IOC). I think Groundspeak are just toeing the line here and I can fully understand why they are doing it 'cos the way things are going the plod on the streets, and the PCSOs, and the latter day Bodie & Doyles, are going to be jumping on anything at the drop of a hat that looks even remotely suspicious.

 

Yep, let's face it if anyone wanted to cause disruption they wouldn't bother with a single procession containing the monarch and the next dozen or so people in line to the throne all in one place, they'd do something a mile away from a sports match.

[+Happy Humphrey]

In terms of being a potential target for a terrorist attack, the Tour isn't even in the same league as the Olympics, and nothing else is anywhere close except perhaps the football world cup.

The Tour is the biggest annual sporting event in the world. I don't know whether it matches the World Cup for television audience, but with attendances in the region of 12-15 million it certainly beats other spectator sports by some distance! For comparison, the biggest attendance for a golf match in the US is a paltry 170,000. The turnout in London to watch the start of the 2007 race was about 1,000,000. Presumably all caches were disabled throughout the city at that time.

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

quoted by Loony Londo...16 caches temporarily removed 3 to go!

 

Why remove them?

I see no mention of that on the cache pages affected.

Surely the idea - however extreme - is to stop people behaving in a suspicious manner upto a mile from the Olympic event.

In fact if a stubborn cacher decides to ignore the disabled log and looks for a cache that has been removed, they could perhaps make things worse.

Just a thought.

Edited July 16, 2012 by JoLuc

[+Phil100]

quoted by Loony Londo...16 caches temporarily removed 3 to go!

 

Why remove them?

I see no mention of that on the cache pages affected.

The message that I received from Groundspeak relating to some caches that I have in the centre of Newcastle requested that they should be disabled and removed.

[+MartyBartfast]

quoted by Loony Londo...16 caches temporarily removed 3 to go!

 

Why remove them?

I see no mention of that on the cache pages affected.

The message that I received from Groundspeak relating to some caches that I have in the centre of Newcastle requested that they should be disabled and removed.

As did the mail in the original message in this thread.

[+keehotee]

The message that I received from Groundspeak relating to some caches that I have in the centre of Newcastle requested that they should be disabled and removed.

 

Just being pedantic....Groundspeak are a listing site.They have every right and power to disable/delist a cache's online details for whatever reason - but no power or right to ask for the physical cache to be removed. That remains the property of the cache owner. Surely asking for it to be removed is outside GS's remit? If ACPO insisted on them being removed, shouldn't they have contacted the cache owners directly??

Edited July 16, 2012 by keehotee

[+abanazar]

The message that I received from Groundspeak relating to some caches that I have in the centre of Newcastle requested that they should be disabled and removed.

Just being pedantic....Groundspeak are a listing site.They have every right and power to disable/delist a cache's online details for whatever reason - but no power or right to ask for the physical cache to be removed. That remains the property of the cache owner. Surely asking for it to be removed is outside GS's remit? If ACPO insisted on them being removed, shouldn't they have contacted the cache owners directly??

Good point. I recklessly choose to hide some of my possessions for a period of days, months, years 'in the wild' and I make the location of my possessions available to others, via listing sites. If the listing sites start paying me (rather than the other way round in some cases) then perhaps we can talk further (I don't have any Olympic caches before anyone gets too excited.)

[dodgydaved]

Perhaps they can "ask" for them to be removed, the CO can say "No thank you!" - but no right to "Demand" they are removed, how would they enforce that demand? Disable the account? What would be their burden of proof of non-compliance?

[+metal-bijou]

There will be a range of security personnel with varying training. Right down to volunteers welcoming spectators. If they see something suspicious then they will call it in and then as Deci says, the havoc will start. It would give geocaching a bad name. The news are out for it to go wrong, just look at the focus they are going for with the recent shortfall of G4S staff. A positive angle they could have gone with, “look how good our Armed forces are for being able to adapt and step in where needed. Not forgetting that security does fall under their responsibilities and is one of their mandates. And look at the thousands of volunteers who are giving up their time to help on the security front too, all accredited and trained by LOCOG”. Ok I’m very biased and those who know me will know why. But really, the organisers of the Olympics want a safe and secure atmosphere where the games can be enjoyed.

 

As for the SAM, well there are numerous reasons for use. A show of force, ability to remove light aircraft before reaching a target and by destroying light aircraft in the sky, smaller parts will fall and be dispersed rather than a large impact in potentially an overcrowded location.

[richlv]

international olympic committee is greedy and evil.

 

they sue left and right, trying to grab the "olympic" word and anything similar to it. they are purely commercial and very greedy.

and now they have messed up my newcastle time :>

 

i'm here only for one week. my hotel is in the very centre of the city. lots of caches very close. ALL DISABLED.

 

and the stupid "games" haven't even started, from all i can tell.

 

oh, and i have a travel bug that i got in the usa and that wanted to go to england.

[+Phil100]

 

and now they have messed up my newcastle time :>

 

i'm here only for one week. my hotel is in the very centre of the city. lots of caches very close. ALL DISABLED.

 

OK, Newcastle city centre caches are disabled but there are plenty of other caches within easy reach of the centre. We have an excellent Metro system that can take you around the rest of the city and North and South Tyneside. If you need further advice or information, contact me with a PM.

[+MartyBartfast]

In terms of being a potential target for a terrorist attack, the Tour isn't even in the same league as the Olympics, and nothing else is anywhere close except perhaps the football world cup.

The Tour is the biggest annual sporting event in the world. I don't know whether it matches the World Cup for television audience, but with attendances in the region of 12-15 million it certainly beats other spectator sports by some distance! For comparison, the biggest attendance for a golf match in the US is a paltry 170,000. The turnout in London to watch the start of the 2007 race was about 1,000,000. Presumably all caches were disabled throughout the city at that time.

 

Perhaps so, but that's still an order of magnitude off the Olympics figures.

 

And you're comparing a golf tournament in 1 location over a couple of days with a huge entrance fee, to the tour which is spread over several weeks, several thousand kilometres and several countries where anyone can turn up for 10 minutes (thats how long it lasted when I went to see it) for free, so not exactly comparing apples with apples?

 

As Metal-Bijou pointed out this is not so much about Groundspeak reacting to the actual risk of any terrorist activity, but it's about them reacting to the security in place around the event, and you cannot deny that the security around the Olympics is (rightly or wrongly) going to be heavier and less tolerant than anything we've seen before, except perhaps the aftermath of 9-11 or the July 7th attacks and Geocaching was nowhere near as common/popular then as it is now.

 

FWIW I'm affected 'cos I work in London so a I won't be able to look for the disabled caches -Meh! My own cache by the Thames isn't included in the 'ban' due to the Thames being a cut-off point, but if it was it wouldn't bother me at all (coincidentally it's currently disabled for some other reason).

[+Happy Humphrey]

In terms of being a potential target for a terrorist attack, the Tour isn't even in the same league as the Olympics, and nothing else is anywhere close except perhaps the football world cup.

The Tour is the biggest annual sporting event in the world. I don't know whether it matches the World Cup for television audience, but with attendances in the region of 12-15 million it certainly beats other spectator sports by some distance! For comparison, the biggest attendance for a golf match in the US is a paltry 170,000. The turnout in London to watch the start of the 2007 race was about 1,000,000. Presumably all caches were disabled throughout the city at that time.

 

Perhaps so, but that's still an order of magnitude off the Olympics figures.

 

And you're comparing a golf tournament in 1 location over a couple of days with a huge entrance fee, to the tour which is spread over several weeks, several thousand kilometres and several countries where anyone can turn up for 10 minutes (thats how long it lasted when I went to see it) for free, so not exactly comparing apples with apples?

 

As Metal-Bijou pointed out this is not so much about Groundspeak reacting to the actual risk of any terrorist activity, but it's about them reacting to the security in place around the event, and you cannot deny that the security around the Olympics is (rightly or wrongly) going to be heavier and less tolerant than anything we've seen before, except perhaps the aftermath of 9-11 or the July 7th attacks and Geocaching was nowhere near as common/popular then as it is now.

 

FWIW I'm affected 'cos I work in London so a I won't be able to look for the disabled caches -Meh! My own cache by the Thames isn't included in the 'ban' due to the Thames being a cut-off point, but if it was it wouldn't bother me at all (coincidentally it's currently disabled for some other reason).

I doubt that the Olympics attracts that number of actual spectators, although I appreciate that the stats are difficult to compare as the Tour is over three weeks and the Olympics is (dunno actually - a week?). Whem I've watched the Olympics in the past it seemed to be "one man and his dog" watching (except for some of the athletics finals) and I don't know of anyone that's actually attending (although I know of quite a few who applied for tickets).

 

But all I'm saying is that they are both significant events, so security risks are going to be in the same ball park. If a million people turned up in 2007 just to watch a small circuit (7.9 km) around the centre of London then it can't be that insignificant; how many Olympic events will have a million people watching from the sidelines? Some villages in France will have half a million international visitors this week.

 

Anyway, if you've followed "Twenty Twelve" you'll know all about the type of decisions that are being made in London!

[team tisri]

There will be a range of security personnel with varying training. Right down to volunteers welcoming spectators. If they see something suspicious then they will call it in and then as Deci says, the havoc will start. It would give geocaching a bad name. The news are out for it to go wrong, just look at the focus they are going for with the recent shortfall of G4S staff.

 

Yep, whenever anything happens it's not the police's fault for hugely over-reacting, it's not the media's fault for sensationalising everything, it's the fault of the average person just going about their business.

 

If a film pot doesn't represent a danger in the SW1 area for 99.9% of the time it's hard to see how it suddenly represents a danger because a load of cyclists or boats are going through.

[+metal-bijou]

There will be a range of security personnel with varying training. Right down to volunteers welcoming spectators. If they see something suspicious then they will call it in and then as Deci says, the havoc will start. It would give geocaching a bad name. The news are out for it to go wrong, just look at the focus they are going for with the recent shortfall of G4S staff.

 

Yep, whenever anything happens it's not the police's fault for hugely over-reacting, it's not the media's fault for sensationalising everything, it's the fault of the average person just going about their business.

 

If a film pot doesn't represent a danger in the SW1 area for 99.9% of the time it's hard to see how it suddenly represents a danger because a load of cyclists or boats are going through.

 

I don't believe for a moment that the film is the problem. Our activity will be preserved as a problem.

For 99.9% of the time that film pot isn't being watched with suspicious nervous eyes. and not just by security teams be they experienced or new to the role.

You only have to look at the hysteria of backpacks on the underground immeadietly after 7/7 to know everyone's awareness will be heightened.

[+keehotee]

 

You only have to look at the hysteria of backpacks on the underground immeadietly after 7/7 to know everyone's awareness will be heightened.

 

So presumably it's only a matter of time before we're reading in the papers about backpacks being banned on the tube for the duration of the Games?

[+metal-bijou]

Backpacks too large are already banned from sites. But I think that's more about getting you to buy more.

 

While I know where you are coming from about backpacks on the tube, I think thy miss perception is easier to explain than someone hunting for Tupperware. Searching for a cache does look like someone rummaging and if all they see is the replacing then it will trigger suspicions. I'm not saying that the security then has a right to be heavy handed like the time a Cacher was asked to put the detonator down but it's the level of training and skill that makes the difference.

[team tisri]

There will be a range of security personnel with varying training. Right down to volunteers welcoming spectators. If they see something suspicious then they will call it in and then as Deci says, the havoc will start. It would give geocaching a bad name. The news are out for it to go wrong, just look at the focus they are going for with the recent shortfall of G4S staff.

 

Yep, whenever anything happens it's not the police's fault for hugely over-reacting, it's not the media's fault for sensationalising everything, it's the fault of the average person just going about their business.

 

If a film pot doesn't represent a danger in the SW1 area for 99.9% of the time it's hard to see how it suddenly represents a danger because a load of cyclists or boats are going through.

 

I don't believe for a moment that the film is the problem. Our activity will be preserved as a problem.

For 99.9% of the time that film pot isn't being watched with suspicious nervous eyes. and not just by security teams be they experienced or new to the role.

You only have to look at the hysteria of backpacks on the underground immeadietly after 7/7 to know everyone's awareness will be heightened.

 

Yep, the usual situation of paranoia winning the day and virtually no sense of assessing whether something is really a threat or not. Nowadays it seems that if a threat exists, however unlikely or improbable, no level of intrusion or paranoia is too much "to keep us safe".

 

Yet the same paranoia that says there's a tiny chance of something being a danger so it needs to be shut down doens't say that because there's a tiny chance of an aircraft breaking up and showering large parts of London with burning debris we need to shut down Heathrow and Gatwick.

[team tisri]

Backpacks too large are already banned from sites. But I think that's more about getting you to buy more.

 

While I know where you are coming from about backpacks on the tube, I think thy miss perception is easier to explain than someone hunting for Tupperware. Searching for a cache does look like someone rummaging and if all they see is the replacing then it will trigger suspicions. I'm not saying that the security then has a right to be heavy handed like the time a Cacher was asked to put the detonator down but it's the level of training and skill that makes the difference.

 

It makes sense to ban large backpacks from sites with restricted space for purely practical reasons.

 

The main problem with the current outlook on security is that it's all about trying to stop something from happening again. Prior to 7/7 the only issue with backpacks on the Tube were that at peak times they were arguably a bit antisocial on the basis they took up so much space. Throw in a few nutters blowing themselves up with backpacks and suddenly everyone is terrified of anyone with brown skin, a beard and a backpack. Shortly after 7/7 I had a friend from out of town staying and he was worried when a man with brown skin and a beard got on the same bus as us. The guy wasn't carrying any bags at all but was wearing a turban. My friend merely saw "brown skin, must be an Islamic terrorist, want to get off the bus right now".

 

If governments were more interested in actually promoting safety instead of Being Seen To Be Doing Something and actually did something useful rather than endless posturing under the guise of keeping us safe (which always seems to involve giving up ever-more of our hard-won freedom) we'd all be better off.

 

Of course expecting to get good people in security roles when they are paid next to nothing doesn't help. Something about peanuts and monkeys come to mind, it's just a shame when so many of those at the very top seem to have no more ability than a monkey.

[+Loony Londo]

Unfortunately with the use of armed soldiers there is a risk one of them might make a mistake and shoot someone they thought was placing a bomb when he or she was just re-hiding a cache so i have reluctantly removed my cache containers.

Amazing nobody bothered to worry about any of this during the Jubilee ... Obviously Seattle are so out of step,they did not even realise there were millions more on the streets the past few days

 

But then neither did the Govt put mobile ground to air missile bases on the top of residential tower blocks, or move a significant proportion of it's attack jets closer to London, or stick a Helicopter support vessel full of Marines on the Thames, or ..., for the Jubilee.

 

Face it folks, if anyone's paranoid or over reacting it's the powers that be (i.e. The Govt, The Met, LOCOG, The IOC). I think Groundspeak are just toeing the line here and I can fully understand why they are doing it 'cos the way things are going the plod on the streets, and the PCSOs, and the latter day Bodie & Doyles, are going to be jumping on anything at the drop of a hat that looks even remotely suspicious.

 

It's just as well Groundspeak don't close down caches for the Tour de France isn't it! And has anyone worked out yet what happens to a plane shot down by a guided missile?? Wouldn't it achieve just what a terrorist would want by falling on a densely populated area or Olympic arena??

 

Chris

 

Excluding Weatherby, there have been incidents with Police based at both Birmingham Airport (2-3 miles away from the Airport Boundary) and Manchester Airport (whose Senior officers wanted a 2 mile exclusion zone around the Airport Boundary) due to the behaviour of Geocachers, not the containers being found.

 

But the biggest over reaction, was at Albert Docks Liverpool. When a Geocacher was Challenged by Security Staff, who had watched the Geocacher on CCTV. Moved towards the Geocacher shouting "Drop the Detonator" , said Detonator being his GPSr.

 

Now imagine the Security Forces, near to a Olympic Venue, being called to someone acting in a very suspicions manner. It would create havoc, especially if the venue was closed down.

 

Deci

[team tisri]

Given rules of engagement normally require a positive ID on a threat before opening fire it's a bit alarming that we reason around the idea that armed soldiers might just open fire and then realise they made a mistake.

 

Guess we'd better make sure we don't inadvertently drop anything during the Olympics and reach under a bench to retrieve it, just in case.

 

Unfortunately with the use of armed soldiers there is a risk one of them might make a mistake and shoot someone they thought was placing a bomb when he or she was just re-hiding a cache so i have reluctantly removed my cache containers.

Amazing nobody bothered to worry about any of this during the Jubilee ... Obviously Seattle are so out of step,they did not even realise there were millions more on the streets the past few days

 

But then neither did the Govt put mobile ground to air missile bases on the top of residential tower blocks, or move a significant proportion of it's attack jets closer to London, or stick a Helicopter support vessel full of Marines on the Thames, or ..., for the Jubilee.

 

Face it folks, if anyone's paranoid or over reacting it's the powers that be (i.e. The Govt, The Met, LOCOG, The IOC). I think Groundspeak are just toeing the line here and I can fully understand why they are doing it 'cos the way things are going the plod on the streets, and the PCSOs, and the latter day Bodie & Doyles, are going to be jumping on anything at the drop of a hat that looks even remotely suspicious.

 

It's just as well Groundspeak don't close down caches for the Tour de France isn't it! And has anyone worked out yet what happens to a plane shot down by a guided missile?? Wouldn't it achieve just what a terrorist would want by falling on a densely populated area or Olympic arena??

 

Chris

 

Excluding Weatherby, there have been incidents with Police based at both Birmingham Airport (2-3 miles away from the Airport Boundary) and Manchester Airport (whose Senior officers wanted a 2 mile exclusion zone around the Airport Boundary) due to the behaviour of Geocachers, not the containers being found.

 

But the biggest over reaction, was at Albert Docks Liverpool. When a Geocacher was Challenged by Security Staff, who had watched the Geocacher on CCTV. Moved towards the Geocacher shouting "Drop the Detonator" , said Detonator being his GPSr.

 

Now imagine the Security Forces, near to a Olympic Venue, being called to someone acting in a very suspicions manner. It would create havoc, especially if the venue was closed down.

 

Deci

[+MartyBartfast]

Given rules of engagement normally require a positive ID on a threat before opening fire it's a bit alarming that we reason around the idea that armed soldiers might just open fire and then realise they made a mistake.

 

Guess we'd better make sure we don't inadvertently drop anything during the Olympics and reach under a bench to retrieve it, just in case.

 

 

Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, oh wait a minute....

Edited July 20, 2012 by MartyBartfast

[+Happy Humphrey]

Given rules of engagement normally require a positive ID on a threat before opening fire it's a bit alarming that we reason around the idea that armed soldiers might just open fire and then realise they made a mistake.

 

Guess we'd better make sure we don't inadvertently drop anything during the Olympics and reach under a bench to retrieve it, just in case.

If you have a suntan and wear a backpack and are checking your smartphone whilst studying the trampled flora halfway up Box Hill during the race you may as well report yourself to the nearest security staff (if any actually turn up!).

 

Twenty Twelve would have a new episode if they knew about all this!

[team tisri]

Given rules of engagement normally require a positive ID on a threat before opening fire it's a bit alarming that we reason around the idea that armed soldiers might just open fire and then realise they made a mistake.

 

Guess we'd better make sure we don't inadvertently drop anything during the Olympics and reach under a bench to retrieve it, just in case.

 

 

Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, oh wait a minute....

 

Yep, a stellar example of "security" doing just what they shouldn't be doing.

[+MartyBartfast]

Given rules of engagement normally require a positive ID on a threat before opening fire it's a bit alarming that we reason around the idea that armed soldiers might just open fire and then realise they made a mistake.

 

Guess we'd better make sure we don't inadvertently drop anything during the Olympics and reach under a bench to retrieve it, just in case.

 

 

Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, oh wait a minute....

 

Yep, a stellar example of "security" doing just what they shouldn't be doing.

 

I agree , and I think there will be many more instances of "security" overdoing it over the Olympic period, and while I don't think there's likely to be a repeat of that incident I think there will be many cases of people being collared for doing perfectly innocent things so all in all it's probably best not to be looking for caches near the venues.

[team tisri]

Given rules of engagement normally require a positive ID on a threat before opening fire it's a bit alarming that we reason around the idea that armed soldiers might just open fire and then realise they made a mistake.

 

Guess we'd better make sure we don't inadvertently drop anything during the Olympics and reach under a bench to retrieve it, just in case.

 

 

Tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes, oh wait a minute....

 

Yep, a stellar example of "security" doing just what they shouldn't be doing.

 

I agree , and I think there will be many more instances of "security" overdoing it over the Olympic period, and while I don't think there's likely to be a repeat of that incident I think there will be many cases of people being collared for doing perfectly innocent things so all in all it's probably best not to be looking for caches near the venues.

 

It would still seem to make sense to train security to do the job properly rather than coming down hard on anything they think is even slightly out of the ordinary. If we can manage with the huge numbers of tourists that SW1 sees on an average day without trouble, if Plod can cope with film pots and keysafes and stuff across London without triggering a full-blown terror scare, it beggars belief that we can't cope with a few sports games and bike rides without this kind of over-reaction.

 

As I said above, it's never the fault of what passes for security demonstrating a grotesque over-reaction to a perfectly innocent pastime, it's never the fault of the media for hyping something to the n-th degree, it's always apparently the fault of an innocent person taking part in an innocent game that triggered someone else's paranoia.

[+firestars]

I admit to not having read the whole thread (im at work) however can we ignore the fact that these are disabled and log them in the normal way (assuming a find)?

[team tisri]

I admit to not having read the whole thread (im at work) however can we ignore the fact that these are disabled and log them in the normal way (assuming a find)?

 

If the owners have ignored the associated request to physically remove the caches I guess you could.

[+firestars]

I admit to not having read the whole thread (im at work) however can we ignore the fact that these are disabled and log them in the normal way (assuming a find)?

 

If the owners have ignored the associated request to physically remove the caches I guess you could.

 

Great, thanks. I will take a trip tomorrow to pick up a few.

[team tisri]

I admit to not having read the whole thread (im at work) however can we ignore the fact that these are disabled and log them in the normal way (assuming a find)?

 

If the owners have ignored the associated request to physically remove the caches I guess you could.

 

Great, thanks. I will take a trip tomorrow to pick up a few.

 

Owners who haven't removed their caches might not thank you for it, on the basis it would highlight to the world that they hadn't been out to physically collect them.

 

That said given the assumption that cache owners don't exist to monitor Groundspeak requests so they can be immediately actioned, it is entirely reasonable for a CO to take a few days to remove the container even assuming they ever planned to do so.

[+Phil100]

I admit to not having read the whole thread (im at work) however can we ignore the fact that these are disabled and log them in the normal way (assuming a find)?

 

If the owners have ignored the associated request to physically remove the caches I guess you could.

 

Great, thanks. I will take a trip tomorrow to pick up a few.

As a CO who as had some caches effected by the "Olympic lock-down" in the centre of Newcastle, I have complied with the request from Groundspeak to disable AND physically remove my caches. I have also placed notes on the descriptions of the effected caches that, temporarily, they are not there.

 

Although it is "a pain in the a**e", I appreciate that the hightened security situation means that a cacher searching for a removed cache is just as suspicious as someone searching for one that is still there.

 

Whatever our personal views are with regard to the Olympics, as "a responsible community" can we not just accept the "lock-down" and co-operate?

[+firestars]

I guess you can, if you wish. I however, will not being put off from doing something I enjoy simply because some people in the States think that I may upset some people in leotards in the UK. I really cannot wait for the all this Olympic nonsense to be over.

 

If a chap in black asks me what I am doing, I shall tell him. If he doesn't like it, well then, there is not much I can do about it.

Edited July 21, 2012 by firestars

[team tisri]

I admit to not having read the whole thread (im at work) however can we ignore the fact that these are disabled and log them in the normal way (assuming a find)?

 

If the owners have ignored the associated request to physically remove the caches I guess you could.

 

Great, thanks. I will take a trip tomorrow to pick up a few.

As a CO who as had some caches effected by the "Olympic lock-down" in the centre of Newcastle, I have complied with the request from Groundspeak to disable AND physically remove my caches. I have also placed notes on the descriptions of the effected caches that, temporarily, they are not there.

 

Although it is "a pain in the a**e", I appreciate that the hightened security situation means that a cacher searching for a removed cache is just as suspicious as someone searching for one that is still there.

 

Whatever our personal views are with regard to the Olympics, as "a responsible community" can we not just accept the "lock-down" and co-operate?

 

I don't think it's anything to do with being a "responsible community". Personally I'm heartily sick of hearing one excuse after another as to why things have to be restricted, usually involving generic concepts like "for the greater good" or "for our safety". I'm also heartily sick of "for security reasons" being regarded as the kind of phrase that ends a discussion on the basis nobody should challenge anything done with security as its rationale.

 

The trouble with simple cooperation with something that is excessive is that it tends to facilitate further excess down the line. Taking a look at, for instance, the road cycle race and blocking out a strip two miles wide (i.e. a mile either side of it) takes out a silly number of geocaches despite the outer edges of that strip not representing any form of threat at all. After all, if we can cope with geocaches near Buckingham Palace and Whitehall I'm sure we can cope with geocaches a mile away from the cycling route. After the recent incident at the Tour de France I'd be more concerned about direct protest (e.g. the tacks thrown on the road during the TdF) than someone getting the wrong idea about a film pot behind a road sign a mile away.

 

The other question is how silly things have to be before people start to call them out as being silly. Since G4S apparently can't provide security the police and army may end up filling the gap. Should we disable all geocaches within a larger radius, you know, for our safety and to avoid anything being misconstrued? What if a cache 1.1 miles from a venue caused a security lockdown? What if a cache nowhere near any venues caused a security panic because someone thought with all the police tied up policing the Olympics some nutter decided to take advantage of a perceived gap in law enforcement?

 

Then of course we have the issue of how long a cache needs to be disabled. "Any Olympic venue or race route" would suggest that, using the example of the road race, a band two miles wide and however many miles long should be cleared from now until September, all for the sake of a road race that spans two days. Given the disruption to traffic it's hard to imagine very many geocachers hunting in the area over the days of the race itself anyway.

 

For myself I'd rather call out paranoia when I see it, rather than simply regarding ever-more knee-jerk overreactions as being in any way necessary for security.

[+Happy Humphrey]

This afternoon we can test whether the London action is paranoia or not. No geocaches in Paris are disabled, and yet a much bigger international event than any in the Olympics (possibly with the exception of the 100m final) is taking place right in the centre of the city. With dozens of caches hidden in the middle of the crowds, perhaps there'll be a massive security incident and Groundspeak's edict will be confirmed as proportionate. It'll certainly make the main News if so.

 

Bearing in mind the extra thousands of Brits in attendance today, I wonder whether this cache (on the Champs Elysées) will be logged? I'm not sure what the attendance figure will be, but I guess it will be well over a million.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Happy Humphrey

[team tisri]

Did I miss the article on the news, "Paris brought to standstill by suspicious film pot"?

[team tisri]

Just watched the entire broadcast of the final Tour stage, no sign of any suspicious film pots or sandwich boxes anywhere. Unless the truly awful rendition of the national anthem was Lesley Garrett attempting to show her distress at unexpectedly finding a magnetic nano stuck to her microphone it doesn't seem that the French were phased by the presence of little boxes.

[team tisri]

I wonder if a new cache got published near the Arc de Triomphe and Cav was rushing to get FTF on it

[+Happy Humphrey]

Well, the biggest Olympic event is now over without a security incident (despite the largest attendance in Olympic history). Even though it seems that Groundspeak have changed their mind and caches are NOT disabled they appear to have caused no problem. I'm not sure that I'd have crawled under the security fence to reach one of them, like one of our colleagues! But no harm done, so it's all good.

[team tisri]

Well, the biggest Olympic event is now over without a security incident (despite the largest attendance in Olympic history). Even though it seems that Groundspeak have changed their mind and caches are NOT disabled they appear to have caused no problem. I'm not sure that I'd have crawled under the security fence to reach one of them, like one of our colleagues! But no harm done, so it's all good.

 

Indeed. No security panics caused by rogue film pots although some monumental bonehead seemed to have left their dog off its lead yesterday somewhere around Twickenham.

 

With so many people about it's hard to see caching too close to the route being very successful.

[+MartyBartfast]

Which all goes to show the policy has worked (so far)

 

I wonder if a new cache got published near the Arc de Triomphe and Cav was rushing to get FTF on it

Pity there wasn't one on The Mall a pretty disappointing result for the blokes, but I can't help thinking they were let down by the rest of the Pelaton leaving them to it.

 

Good result for Lizzie today though

Edited July 29, 2012 by MartyBartfast

[team tisri]

Which all goes to show the policy has worked (so far)

 

It shows nothing of the sort, the fact the Tour de France managed to cope shows it was totally unnecessary. The fact so many caches within a mile of the road race weren't disabled shows it was totally unnecessary.

 

I wonder if a new cache got published near the Arc de Triomphe and Cav was rushing to get FTF on it

Pity there wasn't one on The Mall a pretty disappointing result for the blokes, but I can't help thinking they were let down by the rest of the Pelaton leaving them to it.

 

Good result for Lizzie today though

 

Indeed, although given Cav's reputation it's hardly surprising nobody else wanted to do all the work just so he could blast past them in the last 0.2% of the race and take the gold.

 

Much as I like Cav (and spent five hours in Richmond Park yesterday to get a good spot to see him go past), when his speciality is an explosive sprint at the end but he needs the support of others to get him into place he's a lot more vulnerable to events than someone like an individual time trialer like Wiggins. Although he (Wiggins) could lose time to punctures or mechanical issues his success isn't down to whether the team delivers him to the right spot or whether he can hang on someone else's wheel until he's ready to fly.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Which all goes to show the policy has worked (so far)

As Team Tisri and I pointed out, the policy wasn't implemented anyway. Good old British common sense was used and Groundspeak's directive was ignored. Well done to the reviewers in turning the blind eye.

Mind you, I'd advise cache owners to check their caches (especially on Box Hill). There must have been a lot of muggle finds.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

As Team Tisri and I pointed out, the policy wasn't implemented anyway.

 

I thought there was never any plan to disable caches along the routes of the cycle/foot road races, but just around the stadia etc.

[team tisri]

 

As Team Tisri and I pointed out, the policy wasn't implemented anyway.

 

I thought there was never any plan to disable caches along the routes of the cycle/foot road races, but just around the stadia etc.

 

From the OP (emphasis mine):

 

As a result we will be temporarily disabling all geocaches within one mile of event venues and race routes. Geocaches will be disabled two weeks prior to the Opening Ceremony and we will allow cache owners to re-enable listings September 10th at the conclusion of the Paralympics.

 

So theoretically had this been followed to the letter there would be a two-mile-wide strip cutting through London and Surrey with all caches disabled for six weeks, for the sake of two days of cycle racing.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

As Team Tisri and I pointed out, the policy wasn't implemented anyway.

 

I thought there was never any plan to disable caches along the routes of the cycle/foot road races, but just around the stadia etc.

 

From the OP (emphasis mine):

 

As a result we will be temporarily disabling all geocaches within one mile of event venues and race routes. Geocaches will be disabled two weeks prior to the Opening Ceremony and we will allow cache owners to re-enable listings September 10th at the conclusion of the Paralympics.

 

So theoretically had this been followed to the letter there would be a two-mile-wide strip cutting through London and Surrey with all caches disabled for six weeks, for the sake of two days of cycle racing.

 

But at the end of the OP they said:

One or more of your geocaches is near one of the following venues or race routes:

 

and listed all the affected areas, and nothing near Box Hill, in fact nothing they listed looked like routes to me.

[team tisri]

 

As Team Tisri and I pointed out, the policy wasn't implemented anyway.

 

I thought there was never any plan to disable caches along the routes of the cycle/foot road races, but just around the stadia etc.

 

From the OP (emphasis mine):

 

As a result we will be temporarily disabling all geocaches within one mile of event venues and race routes. Geocaches will be disabled two weeks prior to the Opening Ceremony and we will allow cache owners to re-enable listings September 10th at the conclusion of the Paralympics.

 

So theoretically had this been followed to the letter there would be a two-mile-wide strip cutting through London and Surrey with all caches disabled for six weeks, for the sake of two days of cycle racing.

 

But at the end of the OP they said:

One or more of your geocaches is near one of the following venues or race routes:

 

and listed all the affected areas, and nothing near Box Hill, in fact nothing they listed looked like routes to me.

 

What I saw at the end was a list of locations of venues. So it may be they said "and race routes" and then decided not to include race routes. So either GS decided including race routes was an overreaction, or they changed their minds and forgot to update the text, or they are stuck in some kind of left-hand-right-hand situation where they don't know what they are doing.

 

Either way it's good to still have some caches near home that are both unfound and enabled.

[+MartyBartfast]

So either GS decided including race routes was an overreaction, or they changed their minds and forgot to update the text, or they are stuck in some kind of left-hand-right-hand situation where they don't know what they are doing.

 

 

To be honest (and this sounds dangerously like I'm agreeing with you & HH ) I think the whole episode smacks of "Something must be done", come up with a vague idea, think of a number (1 mile), not think about the venues too much (the footie fields being disabled to the end of the Paralympics when they'll be all done and dusted in a couple of weeks), and then let it loose without giving it any further thought.

[team tisri]

So either GS decided including race routes was an overreaction, or they changed their minds and forgot to update the text, or they are stuck in some kind of left-hand-right-hand situation where they don't know what they are doing.

 

 

To be honest (and this sounds dangerously like I'm agreeing with you & HH ) I think the whole episode smacks of "Something must be done", come up with a vague idea, think of a number (1 mile), not think about the venues too much (the footie fields being disabled to the end of the Paralympics when they'll be all done and dusted in a couple of weeks), and then let it loose without giving it any further thought.

 

Yep, it's all about Being Seen To Be Doing Something, as opposed to actually doing anything useful that might not be visible.

 

I can see a reason for not wanting geocaches right outside the Olympic Stadium, I can see a reason for not wanting caches right outside major venues, just like I can see a reason not to hide a cache in a bush right outside a primary school or an ammo can near a military base.

 

The idea of restricting everything within a mile radius just seems like total overkill. Then it appears they came up with the idea that a natural barrier (e.g. the Thames) would mean a cache within a mile didn't necessarily need to be disabled, which then leads into questions like whether a man-made barrier (such as the M3) should perform a similar function.

 

Then comes the question as I raised before about how we can manage to have geocaches in the most sensitive parts of London all the time, apparently without incident, and yet we suddenly can't have anything within a mile of a sports venue. We can have caches within a mile of Wimbledon while the tennis is on for the annual Grand Open but apparently can't have caches within a mile of Wimbledon while the Olympic tennis is taking place. There never seems to be any call to disable nearby caches for other very popular events, such as Twickenham, the Hampton Court Flower Show (which I know is on a totally different scale but still results in traffic backed up from Hampton Court all the way to the M3), Wimbledon, the assorted football cup finals, etc.

 

Out of curiosity, I wonder if caches within a mile of a Superbowl final in the US are disabled.

[+Loony Londo]

Not long to go until the 10th Sept when we can put our caches back! Have you got your caches ready for replacement?