Caches in British Telecom phone boxes

July 2, 2012

Recently British Telecom contacted Groundspeak (who own geocaching.com) after an engineer had found a couple of caches inside phone boxes. BT said whilst they didn't want to discourage geocaching their engineers would remove any containers they found and asked that no more be placed. After discussion with Groundspeak the UK reviewers have decided that no more caches will be published which are in or attached to phone boxes. Any active caches currently in place won't be archived but we would ask owners to move them to a new location as soon as possible to avoid them being removed. Caches that subsequently go missing or are in need of maintenance must be archived rather than replaced or repaired.

Please note that this only applies to phone boxes (of any type) operated by British Telecom and not to any operated by other telecommunications companies such Kingston Upon Hull Telecom, Manx Telecom, Jersey Telecom or Cable & Wireless (Guernsey). Nor does it apply to any of the old 'red' phone boxes that are out of use and may be owned and maintained as attractions by local councils or parish councils. For these normal permission would apply.

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

July 2, 2012

I personally look forward to looking dodgy and running my hand along endless crash Barriers than going to a phone box and having a cache there nice and simple, has the decision been influenced by the bitching on the NW forums?

1.6k · July 2, 2012

BT contacted Groundspeak to inform them of the removal of the containers and that they would remove all ones found in the future, stating that there was

security, regulatory and environmental issues

It was the archival of one of these caches, which lead to the Topic in the NW Forum, and not the other way around. And I as made very clear to you, it had nothing to do with anyone living near to the Phone Boxes.

July 2, 2012

I for one won't lose any sleep when they go. However it was very handy sometimes to be able to find a cache and sign in the dry when it was raining . I also thought it was a good use for them since it isn't often you see anyone making a call nowadays!

3.1k · July 2, 2012

I for one, won't miss them...

I do not enjoy going into cramped, urine stenched, spider infested locations just to sigm a scrap of paper.......

Bring back decent sized caches on lovely circular walks, placed to take me somewhere interesting.... oh the good old days!!!

July 2, 2012

I wonder if this explains why last week we found two cache containers in a phone box ? Perhaps the engineer removed the original and then some days later had second thoughts and returned it after the owner had replaced the missing original.

3.7k · July 2, 2012

What are the "security, regulatory and environmental issues" suggested by BT? All of the phone box caches I've found have been nanos, which wouldn't have any of those issues.

I'm not saying that the ban isn't reasonable, but it's polite to give the reason for it rather than a list of vague issues.

Anyway; for people who still want to log them, the red phone boxes are still available for logging at http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=fbf57909-ede5-4df2-9b2f-9317eaabaf9e&st=2. Or at least, 1085 of them are (unless you know of any that aren't yet included!).

1.6k · July 2, 2012

I wonder if this explains why last week we found two cache containers in a phone box ? Perhaps the engineer removed the original and then some days later had second thoughts and returned it after the owner had replaced the missing original.

There is a possibility that the second cache, was a Angel cache. Someone decided not to have a DNF so dropped a container to log a find. It's been a common situation in the past for the original container to still be in place, and there to be one or more Angel containers. One cache had four I believe :yikes:

Deci

July 2, 2012

I for one, won't miss them...

I do not enjoy going into cramped, urine stench, spider infested locations just to sign a scrap of paper.......

Bring back decent sized caches on lovely circular walks, placed to take me somewhere interesting.... oh the good old days!!!

Would love to do circular walks - straight walks - up and down walks .... but the knees can't do it .... so without phone boxes - on roadside cache & dash - and any other 35mm cache I wouldn't be able to play the game

July 2, 2012

First we lost Gosport, now we have lost Telephone boxes. Soon the only places left will be in the country side with great views!

It's sad but its easy for BT to just say no. They have not reason to allow Geocaches. Give it 6 months and they will have forgotten all about it.

Personally I can't see what harm a nano is above the door, but hay hoo.

Just keep a watch out on the red phone boxes near you as BT sell them off to local organizations for £100 when they are no longer viable. You could have yourself a mega cache. Not a nano but the whole box!!

July 2, 2012

I for one, won't miss them...

I do not enjoy going into cramped, urine stenched, spider infested locations just to sigm a scrap of paper.......

Bring back decent sized caches on lovely circular walks, placed to take me somewhere interesting.... oh the good old days!!!

I agree with this. I wonder if someone could arrange for the bus companies to join BT and ban bus shelter caches?

3.7k · July 2, 2012

Bring back decent sized caches on lovely circular walks, placed to take me somewhere interesting.... oh the good old days!!!

Move to the East Midlands...that type of cache is common here. Is there a ban on those caches in your area?

July 2, 2012

Attachments to rear of British Telecom junction boxes still game we guess. :unsure:

July 2, 2012

The only ones near us are redundant - just gathering dust and insects, obviously they are still owned by BT but no way is an engineer going anywhere near them. Theoretically caches should be moved then, but as its most likely the only visitor will be the occasional cacher, would BT honestly be bothered about them. Rules are rules and sense can be common!

July 3, 2012

What are the "security, regulatory and environmental issues" suggested by BT? All of the phone box caches I've found have been nanos, which wouldn't have any of those issues.

I'm not saying that the ban isn't reasonable, but it's polite to give the reason for it rather than a list of vague issues.

One could also posit that it's also polite of a CO to ask BT's permission before hiding a cache on their property. Once could conclude from this ban that no such permission was requested or obtained beforehand by COs hiding a cache in a phone box.

If BT wish to ban them, that's up to them. It's their property after all and they don't need to give any reason. "We don't want you to" is reason enough.

July 3, 2012

What are the "security, regulatory and environmental issues" suggested by BT? All of the phone box caches I've found have been nanos, which wouldn't have any of those issues.

I'm not saying that the ban isn't reasonable, but it's polite to give the reason for it rather than a list of vague issues.

Seeing as it is their property they dont need to give any reason do they? I guess this means all those telephone box caches have been placed without permission in the first place, as have caches on the back of the green boxes.

I will not miss these caches, but if you love a phone box so much and think people might want to see it, why not turn it into a nice multi with a big box to find nearby?

3.7k · July 3, 2012

I'm not saying that they have to give a reason. It's just sensible to politely point out WHY the caches are such a serious problem for them.

That way, people will buy in to the idea and it will become self-enforcing. After all, they can choose to announce such a ban but we're equally free to ignore it. We do pay for these things, albeit indirectly, and Groundspeak aren't in charge of geocaching so they can't enforce any ban.

Also if BT's logic is based on fallacious assumptions, then this can be pointed out to them and they might reconsider. For instance, several cache bans are in place due to the "fact" that cachers take spades and dig up ground. Obviously this doesn't apply to phone boxes but it's not clear to me why a nano round the back of a phone box is worthy of such a fuss and it would be very useful to know what the exact problem is and how that might apply to other hides.

There is a whole series on the IOM based on phone boxes and I've heard nothing about any problems caused by them, but I can easily see how the series helps Manx Telecom by maintaining interest in these declining facilities.

July 3, 2012

Also if BT's logic is based on fallacious assumptions, then this can be pointed out to them and they might reconsider.

Judging by comments on here and Facebook I think most people would be quite content if BT don't reconsider :laughing:

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

July 3, 2012

Also if BT's logic is based on fallacious assumptions, then this can be pointed out to them and they might reconsider.

Judging by comments on here and Facebook I think most people would be quite content if BT don't reconsider

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

Quite content? No! Happy Bunnnies !

3.7k · July 3, 2012

I'm not a fan of phone box caches either so I don't mind if they wither and die. Although the ones inside the boxes do have the attraction of being "indoors" and out of the rain, as well as giving a built-in excuse for hanging about the area for a while, they tend to be otherwise unattractive.

But I'd like to know what problems they are causing for BT (presumably big ones if it's gone as far as this!) so that we can see if it applies to other types of cache. At the moment we have no idea whatsoever what problems they cause (except for some vague, all-encompassing suggestion about environment and security).

Unfortunately it seems that Groundspeak never asked for the specific reasons either, otherwise we'd have been told and could have added it to the body of knowledge.

July 3, 2012

I'm not a fan of phone box caches either so I don't mind if they wither and die. Although the ones inside the boxes do have the attraction of being "indoors" and out of the rain, as well as giving a built-in excuse for hanging about the area for a while, they tend to be otherwise unattractive.

But I'd like to know what problems they are causing for BT (presumably big ones if it's gone as far as this!) so that we can see if it applies to other types of cache. At the moment we have no idea whatsoever what problems they cause (except for some vague, all-encompassing suggestion about environment and security).

Unfortunately it seems that Groundspeak never asked for the specific reasons either, otherwise we'd have been told and could have added it to the body of knowledge.

That is the sort of thing we told our sons when they were children.

Please tell us If you see a container in or attached to a phone box because it could contain a bugging device,drugs or explosives and we would need to tell the authorities "

3.7k · July 3, 2012

That is the sort of thing we told our sons when they were children.

Please tell us If you see a container in or attached to a phone box because it could contain a bugging device,drugs or explosives and we would need to tell the authorities "

Crikey; you must live in a very bad area if that type of thing is commonplace - sounds like a war zone! I've never even heard of a terrorist attack on a phone box in this part of the world, let alone bugging devices (what for?) or drugs (in a nano container?). Anyway, thanks for letting us know that's what BT were talking about. I guess a lot of other cachers are naively unaware of these threats, or else they'd know not to ever step inside a phone box, let alone attach anything to it.

July 3, 2012

Crikey; you must live in a very bad area if that type of thing is commonplace - sounds like a war zone! I've never even heard of a terrorist attack on a phone box in this part of the world, let alone bugging devices (what for?) or drugs (in a nano container?). Anyway, thanks for letting us know that's what BT were talking about. I guess a lot of other cachers are naively unaware of these threats, or else they'd know not to ever step inside a phone box, let alone attach anything to it.

You could fit quite a lot of some drugs in a magnetic key safe... perhaps a red painted one hidden up on the hinge plate of a telephone box door ... just the place to hide your stash...

Judging by the condition of the two I went in on Friday night I'm quite happy to not have to go in one again after a cache

3.1k · July 3, 2012

Move to the East Midlands...that type of cache is common here. Is there a ban on those caches in your area?

That's one of the reasons I'm glad to be moving to The New Forest - they're all boxes, nothing smaller than a small and a decent radius - none of this 528ft malarky!!

3.7k · July 3, 2012

Move to the East Midlands...that type of cache is common here. Is there a ban on those caches in your area?

That's one of the reasons I'm glad to be moving to The New Forest - they're all boxes, nothing smaller than a small and a decent radius - none of this 528ft malarky!!

Shame - I remember some excellent caches in the Cheshire area. I haven't checked recently but it sounds like they're all gone, from what you're suggesting. I have 13000 caches in my "local" GSAK database and most are traditional boxes. A lifetime of caching within a very short drive.

I guess the New Forest restriction is no longer in place, otherwise you'll have them all logged inside the first month!

Back to the BT ban; I wonder if anyone could get back to BT and ask them what the problem was (just for our records). I might do it myself if no-one else is bothered.

3.1k · July 3, 2012

Shame - I remember some excellent caches in the Cheshire area. I haven't checked recently but it sounds like they're all gone, from what you're suggesting. I have 13000 caches in my "local" GSAK database and most are traditional boxes. A lifetime of caching within a very short drive.

I guess the New Forest restriction is no longer in place, otherwise you'll have them all logged inside the first month!

No, there are some great caches in Cheshire - some fabulous circular walks, and certainly some lovely locations. Sadly they are overshadowed by the poorly thought out nanos and manky 35ml cannisters shoved on street corners because "I can."

The New Forest Agreement is certainly still in place.... Only 150 in the forest, and I've probably done around 25 or 30 in the last year.... The agreement is what keeps caches there great!!

I simply don't cache the way I used to.... we cache when and if we fancy a decent walk, with a bit of good quality tupperware involved. I certainly don't cache every time I go down there, and if we DO cache, I like to do earth caches, virtuals and those caches that are somewhere I really want to go, or are a bit interesting!!!

3.7k · July 3, 2012

No, there are some great caches in Cheshire - some fabulous circular walks, and certainly some lovely locations. Sadly they are overshadowed by the poorly thought out nanos and manky 35ml cannisters shoved on street corners because "I can."

Good. I tend to be highly selective so I don't come across that sort of duff cache at all - they may as well not exist. I don't think I've found any of that type in the last couple of years (perhaps one or two that I can't remember). Usually the fact that the description is ten words of gibberish with no punctuation is enough to warn me off! Good luck with your move.

3.3k · July 4, 2012

That is the sort of thing we told our sons when they were children.

Please tell us If you see a container in or attached to a phone box because it could contain a bugging device,drugs or explosives and we would need to tell the authorities "

Really?

Given how little use phone boxes actually see these days who would be bothered to place a bugging device in them, especially one so small that it would fit inside a film pot? They'd be out changing the batteries more often than changing the tape.

Drugs or explosives? Yep, lots of scope to hide a stash of drugs in a film pot. Given how infrequently they are cleaned it would be easier to hide a stash in a crumpled beer can left on the floor. It's also hard to see much threat from explosives either, unless someone wanted to blow the rust off the hinges so the door will open easily.

July 4, 2012

Back to the BT ban; I wonder if anyone could get back to BT and ask them what the problem was (just for our records). I might do it myself if no-one else is bothered.

Who's records??? We reviewers are quite happy with BT's request. It makes perfect sense to us and we've complied with it. It's gone into the UK Wiki where it's available as a reference for anyone. What else do we need to know that would make our lives more fulfilled than they already are

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

6.2k · July 4, 2012

Back to the BT ban; I wonder if anyone could get back to BT and ask them what the problem was (just for our records). I might do it myself if no-one else is bothered.

Who's records??? We reviewers are quite happy with BT's request. It makes perfect sense to us and we've complied with it. It's gone into the UK Wiki where it's available as a reference for anyone. What else do we need to know that would make our lives more fulfilled than they already are

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

Well I think it would be useful to know the real reason, if only so that we can avoid similar potential issues elsewhere, or even persuade them that their reasoning is flawed in the vain hope they might change their mind. This approach has possibly had some affect down in Gosport, but we're still awaiting the outcome on that one.

The reason quoted by Decci above:

security, regulatory and environmental issues

doesn't hold up, it's just the usual 'cover all bases' so there's nowhere to target an argument type of response. If there was a genuine security or regulatory issue then they would have to request all caches to be removed immediately, but they haven't done that and seem happy for existing caches to remain in place. This then leaves "environmental issues", so what it seems to boil down to is that when they go round working on or cleaning up boxes they don't don't want to have to figure out whether it's a cache or trash so they'll dispose of it regardless, asking us not to place any more will avoid them having to make that decision at all.

TBH I'm not going to miss them much though.

July 4, 2012

doesn't hold up, it's just the usual 'cover all bases' so there's nowhere to target an argument type of response. If there was a genuine security or regulatory issue then they would have to request all caches to be removed immediately, but they haven't done that and seem happy for existing caches to remain in place. This then leaves "environmental issues", so what it seems to boil down to is that when they go round working on or cleaning up boxes they don't don't want to have to figure out whether it's a cache or trash so they'll dispose of it regardless, asking us not to place any more will avoid them having to make that decision at all.

If any landowner tells us they don't want caches on their property, then I don't see an argument, they don't have to give a reason.

Looking elsewhere in the forums and Facebook etc, it seems to be a welcome guideline change. There are a lot of cachers who have welcomed a reduction in the number of nano's in smelly, grotty phone boxes littered with broken glass and the occasional used needles.

6.2k · July 4, 2012

If any landowner tells us they don't want caches on their property, then I don't see an argument, they don't have to give a reason.

I didn't say they had to give a reason I said

...it would be useful to know...

The more we know about why land/phonebox owners don't want caches on their property, the easier it is for us to avoid getting into those situations in the first place, or perhaps adapt our methods to appease those individuals/organisations.

Consider if in the early days every landowner who saw a buried cache, or a cache in a stone wall just said "we don't want caches on our land, end of." then we might never have reached the situation where buried caches and caches in stone walls are (quite rightly) not allowed and everyone knows why and can therefore avoid placing such caches.

Looking elsewhere in the forums and Facebook etc, it seems to be a welcome guideline change. There are a lot of cachers who have welcomed a reduction in the number of nano's in smelly, grotty phone boxes littered with broken glass and the occasional used needles.

As I said I'm not going to miss them either, but phone boxes aren't the only places that are littered with broken glass and the occasional used needles, at least when you approach a phone box you know what it is and what it's going to be like (usually without opening the door) and walk on by if it doesn't appeal.

Edited July 4, 2012 by MartyBartfast

July 4, 2012

I think it's inevitable that restrictions like this will happen when geocaching comes to the notice of organisations. However "harmless" one may argue an activity to be, when it is unlikely to be of any benefit to the owning organisation, or related to their equipment's intended use, it is unsurprising that it's easier for them to get the practice stopped than accommodate any mild misuse.

Unfortunately, the slightly obsessive nature inherent in geocaching that places caches extensively in certain locations (phone boxes, signs, street furniture, next to every railway station, next to every church etc) probably increases the likelihood of their coming to a particular organisation's attention if they happen to own a great many examples of a particular type of equipment/structure (as is the case with BT and phone boxes).

Rather than "bingeing then banning", as a community I wish we could try to get better at regulating our behaviour to reduce the risk of bans. This behaviour includes Hiders (we don't have to populate every example of XXX with a cache) and Finders (we don't have to seek every cache just because it's there). There are comments (first- and second-hand) throughout this thread that read like people have been finding phone box caches almost against their will. We shouldn't need a ban to reduce this behaviour; just ignore these types of hides and thereby reduce the demand for them (and hopefully then the supply would reduce).

I know I'm being somewhat naive, but I hate to see comments almost supporting yet another ban/restriction when some modified behaviour might have prolonged a type of hide that isn't always unpleasant or simply placed for the sake of it.

3.7k · July 4, 2012

Back to the BT ban; I wonder if anyone could get back to BT and ask them what the problem was (just for our records). I might do it myself if no-one else is bothered.

Who's records??? We reviewers are quite happy with BT's request. It makes perfect sense to us and we've complied with it. It's gone into the UK Wiki where it's available as a reference for anyone. What else do we need to know that would make our lives more fulfilled than they already are

Whose records? Our records, i.e. a note to ourselves of why not to place caches in certain places. Marty has already explained this very nicely and I'm simply saying that we are still unaware of why this ban has been proposed and implemented. In other words, we're none the wiser.

Is it wrong to seek to become wiser about cache placement? I've been pushing for the GAGB to drop the "rules for placing caches" in favour of a "guide to best practice" and unless we learn from these incidents we'll never know how to improve this guide so that we avoid unforeseen issues with cache placement. If we simply accept every ban without explanation we'll have to rely on checking an ever-increasing and unwieldy list of banned practices that will ultimately put people off the game altogether.

As Marty said, we've only been given a "cover all bases" explanation that serves no useful purpose. If BT's request makes sense to you then you must be holding back some secret information, because I don't believe for a moment that you'd accept "security, regulatory and environmental issues" as an explanation.

By explaining this fully in post 1 you'd have avoided this whole drawn out discussion.

July 4, 2012

All this "Table-Tennis" of post and riposte has just one conclusion - BT do not want caches in telephone boxes that they own.

It is up to us, as placers and finders, to respect this. Do not place caches in Telephone boxes!

This is a simple response from a simple, straightforward Yorkshireman!

9.2k · July 4, 2012

Maybe if BT knew you were making a 'phone call while finding the cache, they'd change their minds...

But then that would be an ALR and not allowed by Groundspeak!

:laughing:

July 4, 2012

By explaining this fully in post 1 you'd have avoided this whole drawn out discussion.

It's not long drawn out as far as I'm concerned; it's completed, come to an end, finalised, terminated, run down the curtain etc. As I've said, we are quite happy to accept what BT said. If you - or anyone else - feels you really must have more information then ask BT.... I've got far more important things in my life to do than get worked up about this :laughing:

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

3.7k · July 4, 2012

Simple, straightforward question. What was the actual problem that they said they had with these caches? (DON'T say "security, regulatory and environmental issues"!). That the reviewers are forced to keep this information confidential is a possible answer.

Bearing in mind that we cannot now list caches placed on the outside of phone boxes either, this could have a bearing on other caches on public street furniture of various types. Could it also apply to publicly-owned benches, for instance? Could it apply to Waymarks which list the location of phone boxes? Why is it not a problem with non-BT boxes?

Remember when we had all the fuss about Victorian Post Boxes. It took ages to resolve, because we were told (after some prompting IIRC) it was for "security" reasons that these caches weren't allowed to be listed. That turned out to be only part of the story, and in the meantime there was all sorts of speculation about what the ban was really about as no-one could decide how post boxes were a security risk. If someone had asked the Post Office straight away then everyone would have seen the sense in delisting them immediately once the real reason was known, as it was something that hadn't occurred to us.

Considering that all reviewers must be aware of the exact reasons behind the BT ban then surely it's not too much to ask for a simple explanation? (Getting blood out of a stone comes to mind!)

1.6k · July 4, 2012

Simple, straightforward question. What was the actual problem that they said they had with these caches? (DON'T say "security, regulatory and environmental issues"!). That the reviewers are forced to keep this information confidential is a possible answer.

Bearing in mind that we cannot now list caches placed on the outside of phone boxes either, this could have a bearing on other caches on public street furniture of various types. Could it also apply to publicly-owned benches, for instance? Could it apply to Waymarks which list the location of phone boxes? Why is it not a problem with non-BT boxes?

Remember when we had all the fuss about Victorian Post Boxes. It took ages to resolve, because we were told (after some prompting IIRC) it was for "security" reasons that these caches weren't allowed to be listed. That turned out to be only part of the story, and in the meantime there was all sorts of speculation about what the ban was really about as no-one could decide how post boxes were a security risk. If someone had asked the Post Office straight away then everyone would have seen the sense in delisting them immediately once the real reason was known, as it was something that hadn't occurred to us.

Considering that all reviewers must be aware of the exact reasons behind the BT ban then surely it's not too much to ask for a simple explanation? (Getting blood out of a stone comes to mind!)

Ok to end your Roswell/Kennedy Assassination type conspiracy theory. You have been given the exact information given to Groundspeak by BT. The email BT sent to Groundspeak did not contain any other information or explanation. And in fact was not very long!

So no Blood to be Squeezed out, because we have already been totally drained dry over this.

If you want more information, please contact BT directly and ask for it. Because neither the UK Reviewers, nor Groundspeak can give you any more information, than what has already been given. Because we don't have anything to give, nor anything to hide! You Know What We Know!

As to why this is specific to BT? That is because BT made the request in regards solely to "Their" property! If any of the other Telecoms companies who own Phone Boxes, contacts Groundspeak about their property, request no Geocaches on their property. Then a Ban will be applied to their property as well!

The Ban is strictly a Landowner Generated one, one where you have been given "all" the information given to Groundspeak and the UK Reviewers! But your free to contact Groundspeak directly and ask them, if we are hiding anything!

I copied directly from the BT email the phrase

security, regulatory and environmental issues

that was the only reason BT gave, no other information to fill in details! So no hiding anything!

Deci

whose been squeezed totally dry of "all" information, come down to the Event at Bala, or even the NW Mega at Cartmel. And I will happily stand on a Table/Stage and make the same statement, in front of all who attend. Does that now close the whole issue over information down? Now that you have had a Simple, straightforward answer, to a Simple, straightforward question.

July 4, 2012

You're not going to like this...... here is the sentence from the email BT sent to Groundspeak after an engineer found two caches:

We are however obliged to remove any objects that we find in our phone boxes. There are security, regulatory and environmental issues associated with this.

That's it.

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

3.7k · July 4, 2012

Thanks for that.

But surely you can understand my bemusement. After all, BT haven't even asked for a ban! They seem to be stating that if they find geocaches then they reserve the right to dispose of them; which is a standard hazard of placing caches and not a ban at all. So I had to assume that there was more than meets the eye here. It's simply that the BT engineers are instructed to do this with anything they find in phone boxes and they are letting us know.

But now I have your assurance that the reviewers never investigated further I'm not too bothered, as it sounds like it won't affect any other cache hide. Basically it's a Groundspeak rule (not a BT one) and we have to abide by it to get a cache listed.

July 4, 2012

Basically it's a Groundspeak rule (not a BT one) and we have to abide by it to get a cache listed.

Sorry, you've got that the wrong way round (easy mistake to make when the subject's been talked to oblivion like this one has). It's a BT 'rule' (if you must use that word) that stops caches in phone boxes. We didn't ask them to ban caches in phone boxes, they made that decision and then asked us not to publish any more which we won't. Their 'rule', not ours.

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

July 4, 2012

All the various forum and social media posts on this topic just reinforce my opinion that a number of cachers don’t give a toss about getting adequate permission for their caches but will moan to high heaven when landowners understandably get upset and instigate blanket bans.

3.7k · July 4, 2012

Sorry, you've got that the wrong way round (easy mistake to make when the subject's been talked to oblivion like this one has). It's a BT 'rule' (if you must use that word) that stops caches in phone boxes. We didn't ask them to ban caches in phone boxes, they made that decision and then asked us not to publish any more which we won't. Their 'rule', not ours.

Ah yes, you did mention that they asked for no more to be placed.

Obviously it is a rule, as anything that breaks the rule will be refused publication; without exception (although no doubt several will slip through the net if the decription mentions nothing about the location). Interesting that none of the cachers who placed phone box nanos ever asked permission, despite there seeming to be a large number of them.

1.1k · July 4, 2012

We're in BIG trouble if BT ever realise that they also own a bunch of green boxes.

July 4, 2012

Can I just check this is correct... BT have said that they will remove any that they find. And that's the entire story. Yes?

3.8k · July 5, 2012

Can I just check this is correct... BT have said that they will remove any that they find. And that's the entire story. Yes?

No... they've also asked that no more be placed in their boxes.

July 9, 2012

I've never liked caches in phone boxes, you always get the idea that everyone passing is looking at you and thinking that you're doing something dodgy like peeing or putting up pics of semi-clad women.

July 9, 2012

Looking for a geocache AND looking at pictures of semi clad women...now it doesn't get much better than that!!!

July 9, 2012

... read like people have been finding phone box caches almost against their will. We shouldn't need a ban to reduce this behaviour; just ignore these types of hides and thereby reduce the demand for them ...

Can’t argue with the logic. Though there have been some good hides in phone boxes. Some that have been puzzles with great satisfaction of solving and others tricky little things that I still haven’t found. Though saying that, the two best examples I can think of are in red boxes that are no longer owned by BT.

Caches in British Telecom phone boxes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment