Where can and where can you not hide caches?

[+Clinton Baptiste]

Apologies if I'm asking a question that has been answered a 1000 times already, but what restrictions are there in the UK for placing caches in certain areas? E.g. the Lake District, etc.

 

I seem to recall reading somewhere once (but no idea where) that caches were not allowed in the Lakes.

 

Obviously privately owned land is a no-no, but are there any other restrictions?

 

"5 Balls"

[Wurzel]

Guidelines for placing caches are here.

[+Chris n Maria]

And more advice can be found here. As such there are no specific resrictions in the UK that I am aware of - get the landowners permission and everything should be hunky dory.

 

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[+The Hornet]

You will also find that caches in the UK are only being approved if they follow these guidelines as outlined in GAGB.

 

Edit: Oops! beaten to by CnM (as usual!)

_________________________________________________________

 

Enthusiastic user of GeocacheUK - Information, not control.

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

_________________________________________________________

[+Eckington]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hornet:

You will also find that caches in the UK are only being approved if they follow http://www.gagb.org.uk/guide.htm as outlined in GAGB.

---

 

I am very glad this subject has been broached on the forum. It gives me a chance to explain how I now approach approving caches.

 

Whilst I was on holiday I believe there was quite a discussion on this forum, and on the GAGB forum about guidelines, which ones should be applied and which should not.

 

I also had the chance to discuss the subject with MossT. In the past we had both, as the Hornet suggests, only approved caches that appeared to comply with the, for want of a better term at this stage, GAGB guidelines (though they ad a different name then!)

 

MossT explained why he had decided to hang up his approver's keyboard, and suggested that in future I should only approve by the gc.com guidelines.

 

In fact I felt then, and still feel now, that apart from one guideline and one issue of interpretation, the two were fairly similar.

 

The GAGB guidelines will not allow the use of a plastic bag to contain a cache. I believe there are many reasons for this, including the liklehood of injury to mini beasts. (In my own experience there is also a very practical reason. I have found, quite a few times, that a cache wrapped in a plastic bag has got damp into it. The bag has retained the damp and the cache has become dank and yuuchy)

 

The problem with interpretation lies with the concept of commercial caches. Now I was not around when the issue was discussed, but as I understand it UK caches were not being approved if they mentioned the fact that you could get a good pint of Newton and Ridley's and a great plum duff at the Cachers Arms, just across the road from the parking for the cache. This was seen as commercial solicitation.

 

UK cachers discussed this with gc.com and convinced them that this was an important part of UK culture, not advertising. As a result representatives of cachers from UK were given the opportunity to approve for themselves caches set in UK, Ireland and Gibraltar (HINT Look under the large rock??).

 

If I have not got the facts precisely as they were I appologise.

 

So I decided that in applying the gc.com guidelines to all caches I was asked to approve I would do so, with a little differential.

 

I would not refuse to approve a cache because it names a pub in a conversational way.

 

I also decided that I could no longer refuse to approve a cache that was described as being wrapped in a plastic bag. HOWEVER, I did decide that in these cases I would e-mail the setter and let them know about the plastic bag issue and ask them if they woul mind removing it when they had the opportunity, giving the reasons stated above. So far I have only had to do this once, and a yet have had no feedback.

 

And whilst we are chatting.........

 

Multi-caches: As some of you will know, when you set a multi or an offset I will ask you for details of the final co-ords before I approve. This is simply to check that the final location is not within 0.1 miles of another cache.

 

Virtual Caches: The guidelines have become far more specific in recent months, again I do not know exactly when they were tightened up. If a virtual has been set the setter will have to convince me, either through reading the cache page or by an e-mail reply to a query, that there is absolutely no way a physical could be planted nearbye. My usual suggestion is that the information from the point of interest that was the genesis of the virtual is used to point to a physical cache. This does not have to be an ammo box or a tupperware of course, there is nothing wrong with a micro. In fact when I think of some of the places, Reading, London (at least 2), Bath, Bakewell, where I know there are "urban" micro caches, I know this can be done. However, if you can convince me a virtual is the only choice, and the location seems virtual appropriate, I will, usually, approve it.

 

Vacation Caches: These I will not approve, unless the setter convinces me that either they are able to maintain the cache, or they have asked someone to do so.

 

In all these cases I rely on the openess of fellow caches to assist me. And in am very happy to say that in 99% of cases this happens.

 

Now I am sure I have offended someone by this posting, if I have I am sorry, but having stated my thesis of approving I will stick by it.

 

Thanks for takiong time out to read this and I hope it helps at least someone!

 

Eckington

[+Flackadder]

Seems fine to me.

 

Bob....

http://www.bobh.co.uk

'Life, it's a game with one serious bit - geocaching!'

[+Bill D (wwh)]

Eckington, thanks for the explanation. That all sounds very reasonable to me.

 

I'm not sure about moving that large rock, though...!

 

Bill

 

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

"Ah, take the Cache and let the Credit go..."

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, trans. Edward Fitzgerald

[MCL]

I go along with every word of that.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[+NattyBooshka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eckington:

Vacation Caches: These I will not approve, unless the setter convinces me that either they are able to maintain the cache, or they have asked someone to do so.

---

 

Thanks for the info and clarification on the approval process, very handy... but what constitutes a vacation cache? Is there a distance from home rule? We live in Derbyshire but regularly visit Hampshire (enough to maintain a cahce at least) so would we be allowed to place one there? Or would we have to convince the approver that we were able to maintain it?

[+The Hornet]

Excellent exposition of the approval guidelines Eckington. Amazingly there's nothing there I could take issue with They could almost be summarised in two words - "Common Sense"

 

As for Vacation Caches I suggest these must be very difficult to define. My take on it would be that a cacher's "home territory" is anywhere he/she/they could get to within short notice (say a week to allow for other commitments). So if a cacher has access to a car this could be anything up to 50-100 miles although probably nearer to the lower end of that limit. If you regularly visit another area for work/family reasons or whatever then that range could well be extended.

 

If a bike is the only means of transport then 10-15 miles is probably nearer the mark.

 

Walkers would have a more limited range. I don't know about the range of horse riders!

 

I stress this would be my own interpretation and I'm sure approvers (Eckington et al) each have their own depending on the area covered. The best option is to discuss individual cases with the approver to reach a reasonable compromise. I did this earlier in the year when I set some caches on Cyprus during a holiday. The upshot being that the caches were approved when I got a local to agree to "maintain" them.

 

Another example of the application of "Common Sense".

 

_________________________________________________________

 

Enthusiastic user of GeocacheUK - Information, not control.

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

_________________________________________________________

[+Wood Smoke]

Hi Eckington,

 

I also think you have made yourself very clear :-)

 

And I agree with all that you have said, but I have a couple of questions for you (and any other approvers lurking in here).

 

Holiday Caches - the problem I have with this is that other approvers are not following the guidelines as strictly as you.

 

While I was in the South of France this year EVERY cache I visited was a holiday cache (regular, virtual & micro). I know this cos I emailed all the owners after finding them for some further details.

 

I also placed a holiday cache while in France which was approved.

 

So my questions are

 

1. By sticking to the 'guidelines' so closely are you actually disadvantaging UK cachers?

 

2. Would you approve a holiday cache that was a micro, which needs no maintenance?

 

WoodSmoke

 

GeocacheUK - very useful resources for the UK Geocaching community

[+lathama]

quote:

---

Vacation Caches: These I will not approve............

---

 

I know the quote continues but this is all i need to query

when you so you will not approve it unless blah and blah does this mean that you will first unappove the cache then email the user trying to place the cache

or

does it mean that when you find a cache that has been sent off for approval you will email the user before you make a desicion?

 

also

 

quote:

---

The GAGB guidelines will not allow the use of a plastic bag to contain a cache

---

 

if you dont read the forums how are you to know this????

[+Eckington]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood Smoke:

 

Holiday Caches - the problem I have with this is that other approvers are not following the guidelines as strictly as you.

 

While I was in the South of France this year EVERY cache I visited was a holiday cache (regular, virtual & micro). I know this cos I emailed all the owners after finding them for some further details.

 

I also placed a holiday cache while in France which was approved.

 

So my questions are

 

1. By sticking to the 'guidelines' so closely are you actually disadvantaging UK cachers?

 

2. Would you approve a holiday cache that was a micro, which needs no maintenance?

 

WoodSmoke

 

---

 

Hmmm!

 

In the last weeks I have approved caches set by folks on holiday from USA, which I have approved because they have let me know that their relatives will maintian the cache, and because I have been able, in one case, to contact a local UK cacher who has agreed to maintain the caches.

 

I have approved caches, in Ireland, set by people from Holland, because they have assured me they visit they visit the location on business several times a year.

 

I have approved caches from people living in one area of England, and setting in another, because they have shown me they are regular visitors to the area, either for recreational, family or business purposes.

 

(.....so to answer Natybooshka in an aside, that would include you good people.......)

 

I have not given approval to 2 or 3 caches in UK where I have not had a reply to my query from the setter. These caches I have archived. I think they were all virtual caches set by visitors from overseas.

 

I have not archived a vacation or holiday cache before trying to contact the setter on several occasions.

 

Yes, I have upset some caching teams by not approving their caches. I don't know what other approvers do, so I can't answer your queries about the approvers for Southern France, but I do not think I am disadvantaging UK cachers. As I said before, 99%, no a higher percentage than that, of you good folk understand what I am trying to do and co-operate in every way possible.

 

In fact, by disallowing vacation virtuals I could argue the reverse, in that I am preserving a location for a UK cacher to set a physical cache.

 

As to a micro, the same rules apply. They can dissapear and have to be replaced. The log sheets can get too full and have to be replaced. The log sheets can get damp and have to be replaced. I have heard of examples of all of these happening.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Take care and Cache well,

 

Eckington

[+Mr & Mrs Hedgehog]

Would you approve a holiday cache that is a virtual?

 

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.

[+Eckington]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr & Mrs Hedgehog:

Would you approve a holiday cache that is a virtual?

---

 

I think this is very clearly covered in the Guidelines.

 

However, yes I have done it a couple of times when I have felt that both the reason for the cache and the setting were special.

 

Eckington