Can we be sure....

January 22, 2003

The flare up listed in another thread got me thinking-

Can we be sure that there are no caches in the fabric of an Aincient monument or listed site?

To my knowledge places like avebury are virtuals and stonehenge is a good 2 miles away from the site.

But is it in the guidance for micro or virtual only on special sites.

I know it's bleedin' obvious. And it is included in the rules, but should we be more explicit in the forums or approvals.

Shares in Tupperware? Be a Geocacher!

[This message was edited by Team Minim on January 22, 2003 at 08:32 AM.]

January 22, 2003

Posted the origonal message in a new post

[This message was edited by Dan Wilson on January 22, 2003 at 08:16 AM.]

January 22, 2003

That's the problem with caching near these places. Avebury is a case in point, as there are some really important, but well hidden stones in the area. You can't really be sure.

There are some people who would be unhappy with caching, even if it posed a tiny threat to these monuments.

I'm new to caching, but having read some of the debate today on the Modern Antiquarian, I think I'll try and stick to uncontentious cache sites.

quote:
Originally posted by Team Minim:
The flare up listed in another thread got me thinking-

Can we be sure that there are no caches in the fabric of an Aincient monument or listed site?

To my knowledge places like avebury are virtuals and stonehenge is a good 2 miles away from the site.

But is it in the guidance for micro or virtual only on special sites.

I know it's bleedin' obvious. And it is included in the rules, but should we be more explicit in the forums or approvals.

Shares in Tupperware? Be a Geocacher!

[This message was edited by Team Minim on January 22, 2003 at 08:32 AM.]

January 22, 2003

I agree about not placing caches in obviously contencious areas, but there seemed to be an understanding on the TMA forum about virtual caches around the "sacred" sites.

I expect it will take a while for the two sites to learn to trust each other.

Today has been like 2 hunters discovering a tiger, one hunter using a bow, one using a spear, each thinking the other is going to damage "their"prize.

The only difference is at hopefully neither side will damage the tiger!

Lets face it a web site that tells people where relics are will only encourage others to go, given that there is a normal population about to go, someone will be a pillock and deface the monument, so if TMA truly wanted to preserve the monuments they would disband the site and not share the information .

I realise that's not feasable, it would be like anthropologists deliberately isolating a lost tribe to maintain their culture, the act its self would be relegating the tribe to a museum piece and not a living culture.... .

Too heavy?

Probably!

Shares in Tupperware? Be a Geocacher!

January 22, 2003

I've followed this whole debate with a keen interest all day, and tried to keep a back seat on the matters, but one thing does concern me... and I'd rather ask here, than sign up on that site and be blasted out of the sky.

Throughout the posts, the Anti's often referred to those who leave offerings at the sites as littering (burning incense at one point was mentioned... I believe that's a Pagan custom too)... and forgive me if I'm being dense, but surely if the sites were considered as sacred, and that is what they are being used for, then no harm is done? So what if it leaves a little soot on the stone, as long as it serves the purpose it was intended for, by someone who considers it sacred?

I might be mistaken, and feel free to correct me, but the Anti's seem to feel it is their duty to comandeer sites as their own, and anyone else who touches it be damned.

I just find it a little odd, that they feel they have the right to say whether what goes on at a particular site is littering, that's all.

This has nothing to do with caching, as at either end of this point of view, the box would still be seen as an extra.

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

January 22, 2003

I have placed a cache on a historic monument. But it was with the full consent of the Rangers that look after the site. Infact they helped in the locating of the cache. If you read the cache page all is explained.

What I am trying to say is if you do your research and ask the people responsible for the location there is no problem.

Before I get some questions the cache is not on the actual structure but ground nearby but still within the site.

Mark (TheCat)

www.geocacheuk.com

1.4k · January 22, 2003

Hey mark, that's really nice.

Perhaps we could create an area on GCUK where people could upload letters requesting permission and the replies recieved.

I recon that would be really usefull for new commers.

Bear rescues a speciality!

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

January 22, 2003

I've done all the caches in the Avebury area (including my 100th). The day I did them was a hot day in July and Avebury stone circle and West Kennet Long Barrow were absolutely crawling with tourists. Don't try to tell me that placing a cache in a sensible location near any of those sites has a fraction of the impact of a busload of daytrippers.

Let's be honest, the mere existence of a path indicates substantial damage by all the people who have walked along it.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 22, 2003

There are no physical caches in Avebury.

The cache at West Kennett is outside the boundary of the Barrow and is neither buried nor has it disturbed any stones, small or otherwise. In fact it's just placed on the ground in plain view.

Likewise our other caches which have the names of places of interest are outside the boundary of that location.

I believe every cacher would be mortified to find a cache which in any way interfered with a location of historic interest, and we'd be removing that hider from our site in short order.

Since we are doing more to look after such sites than most other visitors (such as Cache in, Trash out), it is ironic that such a flame war has come about.

Whatever happened to tolerance and trying to live together harmoniously?

Dave

January 22, 2003

Having read through all the postings, one of the things that caused more problems is the implication, drawn from one of the caches, that we don't follow our own rules.

Whilst all the moderators do our best to check caches are ok when we approve them, even before this there have been unsuitable caches that have slipped through.

Whilst we are currently building good contacts with the various big landowners and site custodians in the country, a lot of the good work could be scuppered by people from the MA site complaining to the authorities, and caches being discovered in unsuitable or unauthorised locations.

So if you have caches hidden at any locations such as those that are, or could be included on the Modern Antiquarian site you should ask the following questions:

1) Did you hide the cache having obtained proper permission from the people responsible for the site?

2) Is it in any way placed outside, and away from the significant parts of the site or in a location approved by the people responsible for the site?

3) Does it conform to all cache rules, specifically not being buried, or hidden in a way that impacts the site?

If the answers to any of them are No then the cache should be moved or removed until you can honestly answer Yes to all the questions. If you contact either ourselves or Tim and June, and we can archive the cache from the site.

Seriously if only one or two such caches turn up coupled with vocal complaints to the site custodians we could have similar problems to those that are occuring in the US where some cachers have to purchase a renewable licence to hide a cache, and in some places are banned altogether.

Regards,

Richard

January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:
So what if it leaves a little soot on the stone, as long as it serves the purpose it was intended for, by someone who considers it sacred?

Try reading http://www.ravenfamily.org/sam/pag/site_dam.html for an indication of the damage that can be done...

January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ocifant:
Try reading http://www.ravenfamily.org/sam/pag/site_dam.html for an indication of the damage that can be done...

Thanks Ocifant.

It was a genuine question, and I'm glad someone could explain that to me.

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:
It was a genuine question, and I'm glad someone could explain that to me.

Yeah... although I've never (personally) had the urge to do anything to a monolith other than photograph it, this was a really interesting read. Always nice to have some good background information about these things. Up until today, if I'd encountered somebody burning candles on ancient monuments during my geocaching travels, I'd probably have thought it was a bit of an odd practice, but mostly harmless and left them to it. Now I'd feel somewhat inclined to educate them as to the error of their ways!

Thanks for educating us!

John TGS.

January 23, 2003

No problem, glad to be of help.

The more people realise that desecrating these sites *does* cause irrepairable damage, the better chance we have of saving them for future generations to enjoy.

January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Good Shepherds:

Up until today, if I'd encountered somebody burning candles on ancient monuments during my geocaching travels, I'd probably have thought it was a bit of an odd practice, but mostly harmless and left them to it. Now I'd feel somewhat inclined to educate them as to the error of their ways!

Indeed, exactly the same here, which is why I asked... I had always left people to it, and failed to understand what the harm was.

It goes to prove that you really can learn something new everyday...

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

3.8k · January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:

An it harm none, do what ye will

And you with a signature 'tag line' that pagans and witches all over the country recognise as their own.... I almost had you down as a 'stone hugger'

John

Wild Tupperware Hunter

January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pharisee:

And you with a signature 'tag line' that pagans and witches all over the country recognise as their own.... I almost had you down as a 'stone hugger'

Wow! Two people In one day picked up on my sig.

No, I just agree with the sentiments.

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

3.8k · January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:

No, I just agree with the sentiments.

My wife won't let me dance about with naked virgins

John

Wild Tupperware Hunter

January 23, 2003

As hindsight is always 20/20 it's interesting to note that amongst the acts of vandalism encountered ( and I didn't realise there were so many!) finding tupperware boxes didn't rate at all.

If only these facts had registered in both forums before yesterday!!

Shares in Tupperware? Be a Geocacher!

January 24, 2003

[Can we be sure that there are no caches in the fabric of an Aincient monument or listed site?

To my knowledge places like avebury are virtuals and stonehenge is a good 2 miles away from the site.

But is it in the guidance for micro or virtual only on special sites.]

One of your competitor sites lists a microcache and cache at King Henry VII mound in Richmond Park, Surrey, England - a very historic site indeed.

Would you go along with this?

Shouldn't caches at ancient sites be purely virtual caches?

Andy

http://www.megalithic.co.uk

Try our NEW live Megalith Map

Prehistoric sites in the UK, Ireland and beyond

Thousands of Images, Links, Downloads, Maps, Web Search, Members Features

January 24, 2003

[Can we be sure that there are no caches in the fabric of an Ancient monument or listed site?

To my knowledge places like avebury are virtuals and stonehenge is a good 2 miles away from the site.

But is it in the guidance for micro or virtual only on special sites.]

One of your competitor sites lists a microcache and cache at King Henry VII mound in Richmond Park, Surrey, England - a very historic site indeed.

Would you go along with this?

Shouldn't caches at ancient sites be purely virtual caches?

Andy

http://www.megalithic.co.uk

Try our NEW live Megalith Map

Prehistoric sites in the UK, Ireland and beyond

Thousands of Images, Links, Downloads, Maps, Web Search, Members Features

January 24, 2003

Absolutes are so difficult,

if the cache was in the verge at the edge of the access road, and needed clues finding on the site to complete it then the physical location would not be an issue.

Equally if the cache was some distance distant (yeah yeah I know the size of Avebury world heritage site now) then the physical cache would IMHO not be a problem.

Tarmac and roadside ditches generally being non historical ( I nearly said always then).

I think the problem is that if you look for an absolute, one exception blows it apart.

Caches hailed on TMA as totally unacceptable, turn out to be nowhere near the historic structure and hidden with owners permission, which suddenly causes them to be OK.

Much is made on TMA of the differences between caching sites, this seems to have recently supplanted the digs and jibes they used to have with megalith sites. Isn't it odd that inter-cultural friction displaces internecine.

Is this a case of better the enemy we don't know than the enemy we do?

In short I will decline from comment on another sites actions, I don't believe I have all the facts, have no grounding regarding the customs and practice of that site and no wish to inflame a situation that is just about stabilising after many misconceptions.

The only difference being understanding.

Chris

Protect GeoCaching, Ignore an Oxymoron!

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by megalithic:
[Can we be sure that there are no caches in the fabric of an Ancient monument or listed site?

To my knowledge places like avebury are virtuals and stonehenge is a good 2 miles away from the site.

But is it in the guidance for micro or virtual only on special sites.]

One of your competitor sites lists a microcache and cache at King Henry VII mound in Richmond Park, Surrey, England - a very historic site indeed.

Would you go along with this?

Shouldn't caches at ancient sites be purely virtual caches?

Andy

http://www.megalithic.co.uk

Try our NEW live Megalith Map

Prehistoric sites in the UK, Ireland and beyond

Thousands of Images, Links, Downloads, Maps, Web Search, Members Features

Hi Andy

On a purely personal note, I don't agree that there should be any caches which cause environmental damage, whether that is to historic sites or urban locales.

I am not partcularly familiar with other geocaching sites, though I do recognise that sensitive areas should be protected.

I think that pointing out any particular conflicts to the Admin on the site should result in clarification whether the box is sited nearby rather than 'at' the actual site, and they should consider archiving and removal as appropriate.

I note that you are from one of my other favourite sites which I have been using for quite a while (not simply to hide boxes, but for the history and information it affords) and hope this isn't going to result in the same confrontation which we have recently experienced.

January 24, 2003

By running a site like The Megalithic Portal, and other similar web sites we are, whether we like it or not, advertising obscure ancient sites to the public at large. I'm pleased to hear you already visit, indeed this reinforces the point I'm going to make that kicking people from a web site is not a postive way to carry on.

Publicising ancient sites has been going on for the last 30 or so years, started by the books of Janet & Colin Bord, and accelerated greatly with the arrival of the Internet.

As the person who added the most obscure sites early on in the history of the Internet (from 1997) I've grappled with this dilemma many times over the years. This is how I see it:

I believe that publicising these sites through my web site has had a positive benefit on the sites. It has resulted in many people contacting me with news of ancient sites near them that have been under threat. I started a web site specifically about this, where you can still read past examples here: http://www.stonehenge.ukf.net/

Through these contacts, I became heavily involved in 'putting the word around' via e-mail, as you may know. Indeed this led to my quarterly campaigning column 'Site Watch', specifically about damage to ancient sites, and what readers can do about it in the magazine 3rd Stone.

I've seen and heard some horror stories involving stones and ancient sites over the years. From daubing with paint, to torching with petrol. From burying crystals to cutting a huge road through a World Heritage Site. From stone circles demolished or barrows ploughed flat by farmers in the last 20 years to supermarkets and quarries nearly being built over them. For years, no one knew the huge damage being caused by agriculture and development.

All the sites I've seen rescued, especially in the last two cases, have come about as a result of an outcry by that cliche "the Great British public" (and indeed throughout the world via the internet). So that's my argument for publicising ancient sites as we do.

Secondly:

Most of us who visit ancient sites get to them by car. Many of us drive hundreds of miles to explore new areas, and clock up thousands of miles down country lanes, leaving air pollution, bits of rubber & traces of oil as we go.

So what has all this got to do with caching?

Compared to all above, I don't see that hiding a Tupperware box about 0.1mile from an ancient site as a problem. Following the Geocache guidelines in other words. I'm happy for people to be out visiting the countryside, visiting ancient sites, for whatever reason, exercising their right of access. As long as they don't damage the site itself.

In my opinion, those who decry the hobby of cacheing, yet who contribute to pollution with day trips in their cars, or by other aspects of modern life, are hippocrites.

We need to encourage cachers to follow their own guidelines, and if they get something more from their visit to an ancient site, then so much the better.

Andy

http://www.megalithic.co.uk

Try our NEW live Megalith Map

Prehistoric sites in the UK, Ireland and beyond

Thousands of Images, Links, Downloads, Maps, Web Search, Members Features

January 24, 2003

Thanks Megalithic, for your level and reasonable approach to our pastime. I think that some good has come from the recent events, for we now have a contact who can help the less informed become more informed.

I have posted this publicly rather than send you an email because I wish others to know that we really do want to be reasonable and respect our heritage and countryside. And, we need some help because many geocachers are relatively uninitiated in the countryside, I know it was an eye opener for us, and continues to be an amazing learning experience.

I have asked representatives from the two largest land managers to give us a list of '10 Things you might not know about preservation of the environment'. We wish to publish this list, not as a set of rules, (because we have found that the vast majority of cachers don't need rules) but precisely what it says as a list of "Things you might not know".

Could I ask that you do the same regarding 'your' specialised knowledge. I would suggest that to work really well it needs to be interesting, short and to the point, but dealing with the most important issues.

I have no objection to a 'See this site for more info' as long as it is an information site, not commercial, which I guess, given your interest woud be the case anyway.

I would rather we see your list before it goes public on this forum, not because I don't trust you, but because we might be able to taylor it to our particular interests as well.

I hope this meets your approval.

Tim & June (Winchester)

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

1.4k · January 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by megalithic:
Most of us who visit ancient sites get to them by car. Many of us drive hundreds of miles to explore new areas, and clock up thousands of miles down country lanes, leaving air pollution, bits of rubber & traces of oil as we go.

So what has all this got to do with caching?

Compared to all above, I don't see that hiding a Tupperware box about 0.1mile from an ancient site as a problem. Following the Geocache guidelines in other words. I'm happy for people to be out visiting the countryside, visiting ancient sites, for whatever reason, exercising their right of access. As long as they don't damage the site itself.

In my opinion, those who decry the hobby of cacheing, yet who contribute to pollution with day trips in their cars, or by other aspects of modern life, are hippocrites.

We need to encourage cachers to follow their own guidelines, and if they get something more from their visit to an ancient site, then so much the better.

Andy

All I can say is ....I Agree with him

Bear rescues a speciality!

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

January 25, 2003

quote:
I have no objection to a 'See this site for more info' as long as it is an information site, not commercial, which I guess, given your interest woud be the case anyway.

Sadly this is the case You would think that given our interest that such a site would not be commercial, but sadly it is. There you go. I am not surprised that Andy (who calls Mod Ant - "the Other Side") has come out appearing to be 'on your side' - he might sell you something!

Many of you may not have seen (actually I doubt that) my opinion, which is somewhat degraded by the verbosity and vitriol of my initial reaction, which in turn possibly made this issue snowball into what it has become, about leaving anything in the countryside, so I won't repeat that here (everyone say "phew!")

Also I have (in part) said sorry for the strength of my initial reaction and I will echo that here, but not the sentiment behind it.

Nor am I going to re-iterate what Holy McGrail stated previously - again bug sigh of relief everyone - but will add my support to his comments.

It would seem that the majority of our concerns (i.e. the protection of ancient monuments) are, in the main, not valid. I think we fully accept that the overwhelming majority of you pose no threat to these. However, the concern still remains about leaving ANYTHINGbehind you when you go out, no matter how small. Again, there are insurmountable differences here I feel.

We also know that what you might consider to be our community - the New Age Hippies etc - are far worse then yourselves for the rubbish they leave behind. Let me assure you that these people get exactly the same treatment as any other litterer and they are not considered to be 'one of us'.

The vast majority of us on TMA are, what we call, Antiquarians. An odd term, but it's the closest there is. We study antiquities, so it fits. While many of us do have moving (or some would say spiritual) experiences at these sites, this is hardly surprising. As many of you have stated some of the locations where the 'ancients' chose to site some of these wonders is, frankly, mind blowing.

Anyway ... I'm rambling. I have offered some help where possible to help in anyway I can to ensure that historic sites aren't impinged upon, looking upon it that if I can have some effect it's better than getting all sulky and having no effect at all.

I am also considering setting up some virtual caches in Ireland - perhaps in the vain hope of converting a few of you to our way of looking at things

January 25, 2003

Strong Words Softly Spoken.

I look forward to the new celtic caches.

Chris

Protect GeoCaching, Ignore an Oxymoron!

Can we be sure....

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

Join the conversation