Caches in British Telecom phone boxes

[+dartymoor]

I think all the phone box caches I've done have been in red phone boxes where the phone has been removed. What reasonable excuse do I have for being in them furtling around?

[+Griff Grof]

Shame, there have been a few series popping up recently such as the "Calling" caches, in the traditional red phone boxes - I see their sense, however...

[+simplysup]

I think all the phone box caches I've done have been in red phone boxes where the phone has been removed. What reasonable excuse do I have for being in them furtling around?

 

Some of the best "converted" red phone boxes I've come across are book exchanges - in such, we're not furtling, we're browsing.

[+Delta68]

 

Some of the best "converted" red phone boxes I've come across are book exchanges - in such, we're not furtling, we're browsing.

 

Yup!

 

Also, I've found a cache in one that was converted to tourist information thingy, another was a display of poetry written by locals

 

Far more interesting and cleaner than grotty old BT phone boxes

 

Mark

[+Brian~!]

Depending on the location, I won't be sad to see them go. I've done a couple, and apart from one they've all stank of urine and had rather non-family friendly leaflets plastered over the inside. In fact, the one that was ok, wasn't a BT one if I remember right (it was painted black).

[+Pharisee]

I drove past a scrap yard in Kent at the weekend. There must have been a couple of hundred red phone boxes stacked around the yard. That would have been the place to sick a cache in one!

[+Velosaurus]

I've just had a quick read of the BT website regarding their Adopt A Kiosk scheme where communities can adopt a K6 or K8 (red phone box) for £1. If anyone is desperate to preserve a phone box cache maybe adoption of the kiosk is the way to go?

[+frostbitex]

There`s a lot worse things going on in phoneboxes that BT should concern themselves with. If you hate phonebox caches why would you bother finding them??

"security, regulatory and environmental issues". Why not go one step further than just agreeing with BT and get the enviromental agencies involved and ban plastic boxes being placed in places of beauty. You just cant dump your old fridge off on Dartmoor even with landowner permission. By agreeing with BT`s definetion of environmental issues a plastic tupperware box is technically the same.

As for security, is having random strangers poking about in hedges and coming out with ammo cans not highly suspicious to the muggle public?

BT are quite in their right to ban caches, that is their choice. But agreeing to the reasoning i find hard to understand when it could be applied to all caches.

[+dartymoor]

I approached one as part of Devon's 150-cache Parramble series last weekend. The clue was "Magnetic on something red". As I approached, at 8am on a sunday morning, a woman was busy cleaning out the phone box. Admirable and obviously I was going to have to DNA, but really quite nice to see it cared for by a local resident. (Turned out there was a red post box another 20 yards on with the cache on it)

 

frostbitx - possibly bother finding them if they're a part of a series? (All 3 pbc's I've found have been thus)

[+Simply Paul]

I've a feeling magnetic micros on post boxes are already outlawed by Royal Mail rules regarding 'attaching things to post boxes'..? Not sure if that's something GAGB/Groundpeak already have rules about, but if not now, I'm sure they're coming.

[+Lord_Blackadder]

Would using a British Telephone box as a stage in a multi still be OK as long as there is no physical container?

 

I was thinking of using UV ink in one of them as a pointer to another stage.

[+abanazar]

Would using a British Telephone box as a stage in a multi still be OK as long as there is no physical container?

 

I was thinking of using UV ink in one of them as a pointer to another stage.

I haven't checked, but suspect the restriction would apply to "physical stages placed by the CO" rather than "containers" - that's the usual criteria. So if you're thinking of a card, disc or any other object with UV paint/ink writing on it, that would count as a physical stage that you'd placed. If you're instead thinking of writing in UV paint/ink directly on existing phonebox infrastructure, claiming it then to be a virtual stage, I'd suspect that is not acceptable for other reasons (vandalism is usually cited).

[+Lord_Blackadder]

Hmmmm. that's a real shame. I had a pretty good idea.

[+Kryten]

If you take the lat and long of the phone box and it's telephone number, with the usual abc stuff you could then create an offset to the real cache location, (another phone box perhaps) and nothing in the box for BT to worry about.

[+flipflopnick]

There are currently 68 It's Good to Talk caches in Scotland. Nearly all on or near telephone exchanges or kiosks. Better get moving and find them as CNDs before they are archived. Or are BT different in Scotland?

 

[+perth pathfinders]

There are currently 68 It's Good to Talk caches in Scotland. Nearly all on or near telephone exchanges or kiosks. Better get moving and find them as CNDs before they are archived. Or are BT different in Scotland?

 

69, you missed one!

 

Probably are different ..........

 

[+The Magna Defender]

The ban hasn't been implemented anywhere else in the UK.. just the NW where caches with the Big box little box title are being targeted for archival.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3CE4J

 

This one isn't even on a phone box and is being threatened with archival.

[Deceangi]

The ban hasn't been implemented anywhere else in the UK.. just the NW where caches with the Big box little box title are being targeted for archival.

 

http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC3CE4J

 

This one isn't even on a phone box and is being threatened with archival.

 

The Initial List of BT Phone Box Caches, so the ones BT know about, from a search of the Big Box Little Box term, are the ones being actioned.

 

And sorry that one is not "Not at Risk" because it is confirmed as being on a Post Box! I went through the List provided, and clearly identified those on Post Boxes, which unless the Post Office take issue to. Are not currently a issue.

 

If in the future BT become aware that caches are Listed in/on their property using different series names, and provide a detailed list of those series. They will be treated in the same way, because BT are the Landowner, who have clearly made it known to Groundspeak that they do not wish any cache to be placed in/on their property.

 

The series was not Archived immediately, as normally happens with a Landowner Complaint. Instead they are dying a natural death, as they come in need of maintenance.

 

Deci

[+Happy Humphrey]

And sorry that one is not "Not at Risk" because it is confirmed as being on a Post Box! I went through the List provided, and clearly identified those on Post Boxes, which unless the Post Office take issue to. Are not currently a issue.

I think that this log was the point of contention. I certainly looks like it's at risk! Although appears that the reviewer has today realised his mistake and posted another note. There's no apology so he seems to have forgotten his earlier mistake.

Apologies to Deceangi for putting him on the spot.

[Deceangi]

And sorry that one is not "Not at Risk" because it is confirmed as being on a Post Box! I went through the List provided, and clearly identified those on Post Boxes, which unless the Post Office take issue to. Are not currently a issue.

I think that this log was the point of contention. I certainly looks like it's at risk! Although appears that the reviewer has today realised his mistake and posted another note. There's no apology so he seems to have forgotten his earlier mistake.

Apologies to Deceangi for putting him on the spot.

 

Someone who was not confrontational, or having a dummy spat. Contacted me privately with photographic proof of where the container was located. So made the effort to work with me, and not attack me (and please note, that is not aimed at HH), and allowed me access to proper information re the hide. After I had posted the first log,

 

Amazingly the Cache Owner (who is believed by many in the NW to be a Sock) never once contacted me to point out the actual location of the container. I'm also aware of one BBLB which is located behind and away from a BT Phone Box, but I've never been contacted by the owner confirming the actual location of the container. So with some where I could not 100% confirm that the container was not On/in a BT Phone Box, I have had to treat them as being covered by the Ban. But would be grateful if provided with proof confirming the opposite. And not rants on the page, when I've posted a reminder, or after the Owner has Voluntary Archived the Listing to comply with the Ban.

 

Sadly a small number, who do not agree with the decision made by BT, have decided to be confrontational and rant on the Cache Pages. Given that I was give the List and did not create it originally. So posting Rants on the Pages, will not help any attempt in the future, to get BT to reverse the decision

 

Deci

[+Happy Humphrey]

Someone who was not confrontational, or having a dummy spat. Contacted me privately with photographic proof of where the container was located. So made the effort to work with me, and not attack me (and please note, that is not aimed at HH), and allowed me access to proper information re the hide. After I had posted the first log,

 

Amazingly the Cache Owner (who is believed by many in the NW to be a Sock) never once contacted me to point out the actual location of the container.

 

...

Having checked a couple more of these cache listings I can see that there's more to this than meets the eye...

The wording of the reviewer notes could have been better, but the action taken seems to have been reasonable.

[endoheretic]

Sorry if I've missed this point but are we just talking about a ban on the actual phone boxes or the green junction boxes aswell?

Cheers

[+castagnari]

Sorry if I've missed this point but are we just talking about a ban on the actual phone boxes or the green junction boxes aswell?

Cheers

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=298075&view=findpost&p=5072829

 

British Telecom have requested that no caches are placed in or on their phone boxes.

Please note that this only applies to phone boxes (of any type) operated by British Telecom

[endoheretic]

Thanks...call me a reactionary but I've got good money on that bt means any of their property not just phone boxes. Would it not be prudent to clarify that?

[+The Magna Defender]

BT need to get a life. Surely they have more to worry about than a key holder in a phone box

[+ivanidea]

BT need to get a life. Surely they have more to worry about than a key holder in a phone box

 

Perhaps somebody in BT likes quality / decent sized caches, and this is their attempt to reduce the number of nanos

[+The Magna Defender]

BT need to get a life. Surely they have more to worry about than a key holder in a phone box

 

Perhaps somebody in BT likes quality / decent sized caches, and this is their attempt to reduce the number of nanos

 

This is my thinking. If people on a certain local forum to me weren't so vocal in saying they were rubbish then the outcome may have been different. I do find it awfully convenient that a small minority of cachers were complaining about them then a week later an engineer miraculous starts throwing his toys out of the pram. I won't be going with BT for my phone service. I'm going to Virgin

[+Seaglass Pirates]

In my experience it is often better to make all the facts known than feed information in a drip drip fashion which leads to speculation and forces further explanation, and we must bare in mind your precious time hehe.

 

In that vain would it not be prudent to post the "entire" email from BT instead of silly snippets which you reviewers think relevant to explain your position. With the entire email us silly children can be fully in charge of any facts. This will then leave you with the statement "we know as much as you do. If you wish to approach BT yourselves go ahead."

[+Graculus]

In my experience it is often better to make all the facts known than feed information in a drip drip fashion which leads to speculation and forces further explanation, and we must bare in mind your precious time hehe.

 

In that vain would it not be prudent to post the "entire" email from BT instead of silly snippets which you reviewers think relevant to explain your position. With the entire email us silly children can be fully in charge of any facts. This will then leave you with the statement "we know as much as you do. If you wish to approach BT yourselves go ahead."

I'm sorry, but why do you think you don't have all the facts? In my original post I said this:

 

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.

Some more information was added. That tells the whole story. If you want to see the email then please contact Groundspeak directly - contact@geocaching.com and ask them for a copy.

 

By the way, comments like "and we must bare in mind your precious time hehe" really don't help and are not appreciated. All of us reviewers have our own lives and work but are happy to give up some of this time to help geocachers like you enjoy the game by finding and placing lots of caches.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

[+Woodbury Walker]

Not long ago we had a telephone box cache approved in Sidmouth but before I could find the cache BT removed the box!

[+Seaglass Pirates]

 

Some more information was added. That tells the whole story. If you want to see the email then please contact Groundspeak directly - contact@geocaching.com and ask them for a copy.

 

By the way, comments like "and we must bare in mind your precious time hehe" really don't help and are not appreciated. All of us reviewers have our own lives and work but are happy to give up some of this time to help geocachers like you enjoy the game by finding and placing lots of caches.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

 

Erm well firstly Chris I dont believe I was trying to be helpful. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to help and had failed. No in fact I was going for heavy irony Whilst I appreciate some of the jobs that reviewers do its not my fault if some get criticised. A role such as yours carries both light and dark. If that is not palatable, well you could always un-volunteer. Shame you didnt notice my comments about Red Duster and comment on those as well as my unhelpfulness. Ah well, no problem And factually I actually pay for access to geocaching. So that enables a site like this, which you enjoy being a reviewer on, to exist.

 

And secondly it is far easier to show common sense than winge. Common sense would be to post the whole email here. You obviously have access to it. But wont. No instead its far more helpful and colleague like, to ignore the common sense approach/request and draw more attention to the fact that there was "some more information added".

 

As a rule Chris I tend to lean on the side of helpfulness and cooperation but I will point out where common sense is being ignored with carefree abandon when it impacts on me. Such as reading this forum. And if you dont like it feel free to email me or even meet me at the next event we attend and discuss it in person and in more depth. MORE than happy to do just that. I indirectly know you Chris and understand you are a "brilliantly nice bloke", but please remember you are dealing with adults. And adults tend to follow their own wants and needs and annoying as it may be they will rile against being patronised. Best Wishes

[Deceangi]

Some more information was added. That tells the whole story. If you want to see the email then please contact Groundspeak directly - contact@geocaching.com and ask them for a copy.

 

By the way, comments like "and we must bare in mind your precious time hehe" really don't help and are not appreciated. All of us reviewers have our own lives and work but are happy to give up some of this time to help geocachers like you enjoy the game by finding and placing lots of caches.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

 

Erm well firstly Chris I dont believe I was trying to be helpful. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to help and had failed. No in fact I was going for heavy irony Whilst I appreciate some of the jobs that reviewers do its not my fault if some get criticised. A role such as yours carries both light and dark. If that is not palatable, well you could always un-volunteer. Shame you didnt notice my comments about Red Duster and comment on those as well as my unhelpfulness. Ah well, no problem And factually I actually pay for access to geocaching. So that enables a site like this, which you enjoy being a reviewer on, to exist.

 

And secondly it is far easier to show common sense than winge. Common sense would be to post the whole email here. You obviously have access to it. But wont. No instead its far more helpful and colleague like, to ignore the common sense approach/request and draw more attention to the fact that there was "some more information added".

 

As a rule Chris I tend to lean on the side of helpfulness and cooperation but I will point out where common sense is being ignored with carefree abandon when it impacts on me. Such as reading this forum. And if you dont like it feel free to email me or even meet me at the next event we attend and discuss it in person and in more depth. MORE than happy to do just that. I indirectly know you Chris and understand you are a "brilliantly nice bloke", but please remember you are dealing with adults. And adults tend to follow their own wants and needs and annoying as it may be they will rile against being patronised. Best Wishes

 

As the Reviewer who was given the task of actioning the initial List provided, which was all based on the Big Box Little Box series, which the cache which caused BT to take their stance was part of. I was copied in on the email received by Groundspeak. I was not the main recipient of it. And as such I nor any of my Colleagues have Permission to post the email to a Public Forum. And even if I had been the original recipient, I would have still obtained the Permission off the Sender to do so!

 

So as you have been advised, contact Groundspeak who were the Original Recipient of the email, and ask them to publicly release it, presuming they obtain permission off BT to do so. Or better still contact BT and inquire off them as to why their Ban on Geocaching!

 

BT stated that there was "Regulatory" reasons in regards to the Ban. They did not elaborate on that point. But as the Owner of the Properties affected, they are fully within their rights to Ban Geocaching, on their property. And as such we have to comply with that, whatever our opinions are.

 

So if you would like clarification in regards to the "Regulatory" reasoning behind the Ban. Please contact BT directly and as for a Full explanation.

 

Deci

[endoheretic]

I'll again mention the fact that it appears bt have banned caching on their property and that this would appear to include all the green junction boxes around the country.

I only mention it, not to increase the caches being disabled (though it does) but because bt have given a clear instruction that has only been partially applied .

[+Graculus]

I'll again mention the fact that it appears bt have banned caching on their property and that this would appear to include all the green junction boxes around the country.

I only mention it, not to increase the caches being disabled (though it does) but because bt have given a clear instruction that has only been partially applied .

BT only contacted us about caches in their phone boxes. As far as I know, BT have made no other requests about caches placed anywhere else to either us reviewers or to Groundspeak.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

Edited December 16, 2012 by Graculus

[+Amberel]

I'll again mention the fact that it appears bt have banned caching on their property and that this would appear to include all the green junction boxes around the country.

BT only contacted us about caches in their phone boxes. As far as I know, BT have made no other requests about caches placed anywhere else to either us reviewers or to Groundspeak.

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." - briansnat

Maybe it never occurred to BT that people might want to hide a cache in such locations

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited December 16, 2012 by Amberel

[+Pharisee]

Maybe it never occurred to BT that people might want to hide a cache in such locations

 

Rgds, Andy

 

And to be truthfull.... why would they?

[team tisri]

Maybe it never occurred to BT that people might want to hide a cache in such locations

 

Rgds, Andy

 

And to be truthfull.... why would they?

 

Got to put that bulk purchase of film pots somewhere I guess...

[endoheretic]

I'll again mention the fact that it appears bt have banned caching on their property and that this would appear to include all the green junction boxes around the country.

I only mention it, not to increase the caches being disabled (though it does) but because bt have given a clear instruction that has only been partially applied .

BT only contacted us about caches in their phone boxes. As far as I know, BT have made no other requests about caches placed anywhere else to either us reviewers or to Groundspeak.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

 

But having had this raised...do you not think it prudent to actually ask the person who emailed?

 

Yes the specifically mentioned phone boxes or did they say that they had found some caches within phone boxes and would prefer that no caches are placed upon/in their property?

 

Just thinking that it might be better to be proactive and ask instead of sitting quietly saying" they only said phone boxes" until such time that the person at BT find out about any others and get really negative instead of positive but not able to encourage. I doubt that BT would have a different policy for each of their properties.

[+ratcliffe]

I am soooo tempted to adopt the Barkby red phone box for a pound, just so that I can put a cache in it

[+Malpas Wanderer]

I am soooo tempted to adopt the Barkby red phone box for a pound, just so that I can put a cache in it

 

Yes do it, it can be a large then, not a nano. Looking forward to what you fill it with.

[team tisri]

I am soooo tempted to adopt the Barkby red phone box for a pound, just so that I can put a cache in it

 

You could adopt the phone box, fill it with film pots, and leave people guessing which film pot has the log in it.

 

If nothing else it would take a lot of things that might otherwise become cache containers in their own right out of the equation...

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

I don't know about other large cities but in London I have only ever seen 3 types of people using these big red phone boxes.

Tourists taking their picture.

Inebriated men looking for a toilet.

Dodgy men placing ads for hookers.

 

So I doubt I'd want to look for a cache in there even with BT's permission.

[+Team Hoskins]

Regardless of the argument about whether telephone boxes are a good place for a geocache or not, this issue has made one thing perfectly clear for me: BT are a bunch of spoil sports. And it's noted!