A Personal view from the other side

January 23, 2003

Ok, I’m one of the TMA people who initially reacted hurriedly and scathingly to Dan’s post. Yesterday I emailed him apologising and have assured him that his well-meant “mistake” was nothing compared with the hundreds of far worse mistakes I’ve committed in my long life, and I’ve urged him to return to your forum.

Having read the threads here it’s patently obvious that you are nearly all perfectly nice reasonable people, and probably anatomically indistinguishable from the TMA posters. If you read the “pre-war” TMA posts you’ll probably think the same thing. But then, it’s in the nature of war for the combatants to assume otherwise.

Understanding of the other side is of course what’s needed for harmony, especially in a dispute over “land” which is what this really is. I think perhaps the TMA posters will have gained a better understanding of you from your forum, but I’m not sure that the nature of the TMA mindset is quite so clear, so perhaps I could try to explain it as I see it.

First, please forget the stone-loving druid hippy image. Mostly, people there are pretty archaeology centred. However, they do have a passion for these places, that’s what the monuments do to you after a while. Secondly, please bear in mind that this passion usually extends to the surrounding landscape. There are good archaeological reasons for this, apart from the aesthetic ones, since often there is strong evidence that the features in the general area of a monument – hills, subtle rises, springs, apparently random stones were all part of the purpose and use of the monuments. So when people talk of a Sacred Landscape they don’t mean they are worshippers, they are referring to the literal significance of the place in ancient times. There is, I admit, some reverence mixed up in it, rightly or wrongly, so that’s something you should perhaps bear in mind when planning to put a cache even half a mile from a monument. It perhaps accounts for what otherwise you would see as an illogical attitude to “littering” as they term your small hidden containers, and it certainly accounts for their dislike of any “alteration” to the ambience, however inconsequential.

This feeling is particularly strong at Avebury, which is a particular passion of many at TMA. I suspect that, for a few square miles around Avebury henge it wouldn’t be possible to conform to your rules about placing nothing within 0.1 miles of a monument, even if their locations were obvious, which they aren’t. There are large numbers of ruined monuments there, probably interlinked in original use, and almost any apparent random stone or ridge or ditch might be part of them. I spend a lot of time trying to work out sight lines up on the Downs and if I saw anyone shifting a stone even a few feet I’d be driven loopy. I have absolutely no right to say no-one but the likes of me should be allowed near “my” landscape (!!) but I can’t help feeling upset at the idea of people “rummaging around” proactively rather than just wandering since the odd one or two might not keep to your guidelines. Illogical you might say, but there it is.

As you will gather, I’m deeply paranoid, and probably certifiable. But please also remember that many on TMA are confronted with damage to archaeological sites on an almost daily basis, and that can lead to over-reaction. Religious zealots long ago, New Age vandalism, farming practises, erosion through tourism, raids by metal detectorists, even the antics of BBC film crews (but that’s another story) – all have done damage. Your pastime, I fully accept, shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as those, but on the other hand there will always be loose canons in any community, whatever the rules.

It’s not up to me to suggest how you should run your hobby, but on the other hand, if you want to allay the worries of one paranoid certifiable individual, and probably also live in peace with a lot of TMA people, perhaps you should re-think the recommended minimum distance from monuments, and put a blanket ban on any caches within, for instance, the Stonehenge-Avebury World Heritage Site or, preferably, the much bigger Avebury WHS GIS Study Area. I would assume, anyway, that English Heritage and the National Trust would give you a blanket “No” on any of their land, if asked, since they are like that, and would probably ban sneezing if they could.

1.4k · January 23, 2003

Thanks for trying to spread some understanding.

Bear rescues a speciality!

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

1k · January 23, 2003

Yep I'll sec on that. Once again apoligies for starting this flame war. It is good to know that you are also an understanding person....just proves that First perceptions are not always right from mine and your part too.

Cheers

Pid

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

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them!

www.buckscaching.co.uk

January 23, 2003

That's the first time that I've read an emotion-free description of why there is so much depth of feeling at TMA, so many thanks for taking the trouble.

As the owner of the now infamous "West Kennett" cache and a number of others outside Avebury but probably within the World Heritage area, I'd be quite happy to remove them.

Although we've always been careful to place physical caches in a non-disruptive manner (outside the boundary of the location itself) and naturally not buried, we now begin to understand that some won't like this.

The TMA site said "we understand but don't agree" after some explaination of Geocaching, we feel the same way about the depth of feeling but are willing to remove caches.

We would need to understand what this means on a practical level. World Heritage is not marked on the OS Explorer 157 (Avebury) map, although naturally the NT land is. Can you direct us to a definition/map of what you propose?

Dave

January 23, 2003

Nigel,

Thanks for your well thought out and well measured post. I've been following the postings on both sites forums over the last day or so, and I hope that now the dust is settling we can all move on a bit.

For my part, I've temporarily disabled one of my own caches. To complete the clues, one of the locations that has to be visited is Hetty Peglers Tump - and I had hidden a small film canister containing a clue letter in the tump itself. Even though I had stated clearly on the cache page that it would not be necessary to move any stones or to find the clue, I have taken the concerns of those at Mod Ant to heart, and realise that hiding something physical at this particular location is not appropraite. I went there straight after work to remove the canister. Over this weekend I will change the location to a 'virtual' one - this will encourage others to visit and explore the tump, but they won't need to root around looking for anything. It's a fascinating place, and I already include web links to othe pages with more information about the tump itself.

Please be reassured that the actual cache lunchbox is nowhere near the tump itself, and right by a public footpath.

I've been a member of the UK Geocaching community (albeit a passive and lurking one) for quite some time now - and whenever concerns have been expressed about cache locations, it's been my experience that the cachers involved have always listened to those concerns and tried to address them.

Lets hope that we all learn something from the last couple of days - we have interests that share some common themes and I'm sure we can get along if we take time to consider each others point of view. Each to his own, as they say.

Two Bears

January 23, 2003

Thanks Nigel!

I take your point about the large scale nature of some monuments such as Avebury, and the fact that in other cases the surrounding area forms part of the purpose of the monument.

However, from browsing round the TMA map, what worries me is the potential significance of what outwardly may look just like a pile of boulders.

Naturally there is, and will remain, disagreement between our two camps. For example, it's unlikely that placing a tupperware box half a mile away from Bamford Moor Stone Circle would be considered inappropriate by many here.

But a new cache at SK 221845 whose description began "hidden in a small pile of boulders" would be rejected as inappropriate ONLY if someone realised its significance, which is unlikely.

And if this isn't the perfect site for a cache, then I don't know what is! Unfortunately...

I have a database of all 1000 odd caches in the UK, and I've just downloaded the TMA database of 2966 sites. Would there be any merit in comparing the two, to determine whether any caches are placed unfortunately close to ancient sites? Could be a useful tool for T&J when deciding whether to approve new caches...

January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by nigelswift:
conform to your rules about placing nothing within 0.1 miles of a monument, even if their locations were obvious, which they aren’t.

So there is a rule about not placing caches within 0.1 miles of a monument? First I've heard of that one.

So there are almost 3000 places in the UK that where no caches could be placed within a circle with a diameter of over 1000ft. That's a big circle by any stretch of the imagination. I think you will find it hard to get agreement on that one.

January 23, 2003

Well, answering that is a bit out of my league really. Perhaps someone should put up some thoughts about it on TMA.

Mind you, there are so many sites, and you'll get so many opinions about each location... after all, it's all they are mostly likely to be subjective judgements rather than ones based upon known archaeology, and committees aren't very good at those!

Personally, I would have thought that if you formulated something reminding people that they should avoid cashing within surrounding areas that seem likely to have an archaeological or aesthetic claim to be part of the monument then that would cover most instances and satisfy the sensitivities of most reasonable people. Not perfect, but workable in the vast majority of cases. And it still leaves your participants with an easy walk to the monument. Being more specific than that would seem to be a bit OTT.

Who knows, maybe that alone will solve everything!

January 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by nigelswift:
conform to your rules about placing nothing within 0.1 miles of a monument, even if their locations were obvious, which they aren’t.

I have been misquoted.

My post in it's entirety follows :

quote:
In reply

If you say to yourself "what if everyone who came here did the same thing"?

Caches care not allowed to be closer than one tenth of a mile to another. so "everybody who comes here" cannot do that. End of problem.

It all comes down to us being responsible really. I thought we had demonstrated that !

Sorry for the typo, "Caches care" should have read "Caches are".

This rule is not in the guidelines as a hard and fast rule because there are times when .1 mile would be negated by things such as the territory or there might be a compelling reason to allow it. Again it comes down to common sense and due care.

Tim & June (Winchester)

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

January 23, 2003

Good explanation of TMA philosophy, thanks.

I take your point about caches and monuments, but I think what you describe is pretty well what happens.

I did a cache last weekend on NT land, it involved a walk over NT land, couple of miles, circular and ended up with the cache being in something akin to a roadside verge, man made as part of a recent carparking scheme.

That's got to be the best of both worlds- see the site find the cache.

The stone henge cache is in a similar spot 2 miles away from stonehenge in a thicket off a road which is a right of way and Pets use it regularly to providetheir own biodegradable litter.

As you say the sad part of the last 36 hrs has been that both communities have so much in common, but it took so long and so many harsh words to realise that we are not "shovel wielding bucket planters" and you are not "Stone worshiping hippies"

On a really sad note, my Missus is very concerned that taking the kids 9, 7 & 9 months caching will now expose them to danger from a baseball bat weilding cache pissing TMA follower.

I sat her down and we considered the 50 odd caches completed in the last year, there was only one non virtual which was on Heritage/NT/CADW land

and that I think has been archived ( and tidied up) so the risk of being belted by aforementioned baseball bat is really small!

Chris

Shares in Tupperware? Be a Geocacher!

January 23, 2003

I wasn't going to put forward this viewpoint but the topic originator seems like a reasonable man so here goes.

Why is geocaching of such offence to the TMA people if only yesterday, they had never heard of it?

Geocaches are by definition hidden from view and in my short experience of the hobby, those who pursue the hobby are as discreet as you can get.

I would suggest that if, whilst visiting an ancient monument, a TMAist comes upon a geocache which spoils his or her enjoyment of that monument, then they should do with the cache as they will, with our blessing.

The rest of the time, let's just both get along and do our own thing.

"The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money"

January 23, 2003

I think we need to calm down and be reasonable about this. If we take Avebury as an example, there are two caches near there. The Avebury cache itself is virtual (i.e. there is no physical object at the location) and the West Kennet Long Barrow cache is a micro i.e. very small container.

Even if there was a full-sized physical cache in the middle of Avebury stone circle, it could not possibly have any environmental impact that would be noticeable amongst the effects of the general tourist trade. For those people who have never been there, there is a village in the middle of the circle (yes, it's that big) and a road running through it. There is also a large car and coach park next door and on a bad day *thousands* of tourists swarming all over it. Probably more people visit it every day than there are geocachers in this country.

That's not to say that caches can be put anywhere. Exercising a certain amount of common sense is definitely a good idea. "Under the third sarsen stone from the left at Stone Henge" would be a particularly worrying clue, for example.

Until ancient monuments are totally fenced off, erosion from tourists/walkers/pagans/Time Team are infinitely more serious problems than geocaches (when they are fenced off it breaches geocaching rules to place a cache there anyway).

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 23, 2003

Hey Hey Hey! Now you leave Time Team out of this!

"The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money"

January 24, 2003

In answer to jeremyp, I thought I had offered a reasonable common sense view. Of course somewhere like a carpark in the middle of Avebury village (subject to permission) would be an ideal spot, and of course inside Stonehenge wouldn’t, but the causes of this conflict don’t lie in those extremes. It’s places like, for instance, the open downland perhaps a mile from Avebury that could be problematical. It might not look like anything at all, but it’s part of the original sacred landscape and if you put a cache there then unless you’re prepared to personally supervise every searcher there’s the danger that someone might do something they shouldn’t. Some of these archaeological features are very subtle and eroded and are probably better left alone. Certainly they can do without the extra foot traffic. I really don’t see why the rules can’t be tweaked to avoid such dangers. If you maintain the view that “if it’s not fenced off it’s OK” you will definitely not allay people’s concerns. The TMA posters are finding examples of apparently inappropriately placed containers, as was feared in these threads. That sort of thing, exceptional though it may be, could have been avoided if the rules had been a bit more explicit, don’t you think?

It seems that you have addressed this problem before, in a way, on the subject of getting landowner’s permission, on this thread http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=1500909683&m=7670923774

It seems English Heritage has already said no, as I expected, but I’m pretty surprised that the general consensus was that you should carry on regardless, and even more so that the rules weren’t tightened up.

In my opinion, the contributor who wrote this spelled it out pretty well:

“We have to be aware of what is happening in the US. The whole of the National Parks Department has banned geocaching. A gut reaction from a few "suits" who haven't bothered to find out what geocaching is all about and probably haven't set foot in a park for years. But the threat is there. The last thing we need is to get on the wrong side of the likes of the Forestry Commission or the NT who own/administer great chunks of the open land in the UK. I would have thought that it would be a good idea to try and strike an agreement with these bodies, sooner rather than later and the best way of doing this is to set some self imposed guidelines about where caches can be placed and where they can't. I know of caches in the UK that are not only on private land but are buried and need a trowel to find them. This can't be good.

If we don't self-regulated then we could find large tracts of the countryside that we cannot place caches in. That would do no one any good.”

In a way, I would submit, the row with TMA is akin to a first row with one of those major landowners, and it’s just about the prickliest group that you could have chosen for your first confrontation. Now that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle some proper guidelines are urgently called for. I know I shouldn’t tell you your business and I’ll shut up permanently now, but I felt that a reasonably friendly view from the outside might be accepted in the spirit it is given. After all, the flame war is over, and everyone is pleased there’s now a degree of mutual understanding, but the problem is still there.

Best wishes to all.

January 24, 2003

Dear Nigel,

I'm sure the geocachers will change,

reading the Holy McGrails post on his return to the boards it would seem that the initial vitriol was caused by the number and quality of PIDs posts, and is understandable.(although these had been deleted before Geocachers ever knew about them, and never mentioned other than a post script to an insult.)

The later attempt on "moral" grounds to dadgum geocaching as dangerous to monuments, does not hold water for long. Reading the logs on TMA there are a large number of comments about practices which you frown upon, such as penny wedging and rock shifting. These go back a fair way and indeed do provoke "flames" on the bulletin boards.

Nevertheless reading the logs, the fact that they are still there, and those TMA community members still exist, does, IMHO, appear to condone those acts as part of TMA culture.

I know I shouldn't tell you your business but

perhaps these references should be removed

Searching through lists of trash removed from sites pre-22nd Jan there is no mention of "plastic box filled with trash- marked geocache" indeed as far as I can see on the boards there has been no cache found at all to date.

The question remains

If geocaching was not a practical problem before you knew of its existance why should it become one now?

The whole issue seems based on a retaliate and escalate approach, with assumption and conclusion being reached before any consideration of fact.

The TMA position now seems based on "principle" the idea that caches exist stands as an affront to bored posters (sic), and as we publish those details, we are the soft option. It is much easier to blame a geocacher who logs "moved a stone", rather than a TMA-ite who "builds little devils dens" mainly, I would suggest, because the geocacher is "not us" and therefore a more valid target than "one of our own"

I agree with you that caching, as a new activity in the UK has a lot to learn, and I'm sure you would now agree that the TMA site also needs to take a long hard look at its self if it is to avoid the charge of condoning vandalism, TMA needs action not rhetoric, no flamed comments on the boards, but a demonstration that it is taking the vandalism proudly detailed by its own members seriously.

I believe both communities must now get on with "self governance" and ensure that they "act" rather than "react" from here on.

Chris

Protect GeoCaching, Ignore an Oxymoron!

January 24, 2003

quote:
The TMA posters are finding examples of apparently inappropriately placed containers, as was feared in these threads.

The key word here being "apparently". The problem is, many of the posters on TMA see that a cache is linked to a megalithic site by name, and immediately presume that the cache placement is slap-bang in the middle of the stones themselves. In reality, the actual "physical" aspect of cache (if there *is* one!!!) is much more likely to be hidden behind a fencepost in layby half a mile away...

In other cases, geocachers have actually worked with the custodians of these monuments, and placed the caches in a mutually acceptable location - Don't assume that these things have *all* been placed without permission!

Have any of the mod ants actually *found* a cache yet, so that they can see exactly what these "monstrosities" consist of, and make a reasoned opinion of how objectionable they are - or are we still at the stage of "fear and ignorance"? I'm sure that having a better idea of what we're talking about would add a much-needed sense of perspective to the discussions. I know "Pete G" seemed somewhat keen to turf out the one at Long Kennet... but sadly, I think he still labours under the delusion that it's actually on the barrow site itself, and something of significant size... which it isn't. (and I'm not altogether sure that he has the benefit of a GPS receiver - so it might be a long search!)

3.8k · January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Good Shepherds:
Have any of the mod ants actually *found* a cache yet, so that they can see exactly what these "monstrosities" consist of....

I (politely) asked this very question on their furum after the fuss had died down a little. The answer I received was

Quote "Not yet, but since the geocashers have recently come to this site for inspiration perhaps itwill happen soon." Unquote

Maybe they will actively search for them now.

John

Wild Tupperware Hunter

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by nigelswift:
It’s places like, for instance, the open downland perhaps a mile from Avebury that could be problematical. It might not look like anything at all, but it’s part of the original sacred landscape and if you put a cache there then unless you’re prepared to personally supervise every searcher there’s the danger that someone might do something they shouldn’t.

Unfortunately, your argument applies to everyone, not just geocachers. Unless you close off the land completely, you will get "wear and tear" caused by people and animals (domestic and wild). The addition of a geocache to a footpath currently only increases the traffic along it by about one or two people per week in most cases (look at the logs to see how often they are visited). I know this argument only works while geocaching is a tiny minority activity, but the fact is that it is . I accept that the question will certainly have to be revisited if the geocaching numbers increase significantly.

I generally sympathise with the idea of preserving

archaeological monuments, but a balance has to be found between the extremes of preserving the whole country in aspic and levelling all of our heritage. I don't believe that the preservation of every single archaelogical site outweighs the recreational enjoyment of the people who are alive today.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 24, 2003

I think you are missing the point. What disturbs me about Geocaching is the inability to understand that you can have just as much fun WITHOUT leaving physical evidence that you have visited a place. I get great enjoyment simply taking the family out for a walk in the countryside and getting to see ancient sites along the way. You could even just use virtual caches and completely forget the physical caches - surely the experience of the place is what is important - not the plastic lunchbox?

Hope you don't mind me intruding...

Squiddo

1.4k · January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
I think you are missing the point. What disturbs me about Geocaching is the inability to understand that you can have just as much fun WITHOUT leaving physical evidence that you have visited a place.

Squiddo

Possibly you can, possibly you can't. I think that depends on the individual concerned. I personally don't get football but some people find it interesting. Some people like Walking - some like walking whilst treasure hunting.

A lot of people do enjoy caching and it is getting more and more popular - growth has been amazing in the last year.

If you want to understand more perhaps you should try it (I went to a football match once!).

Not sure if that makes things clearer but what I am trying to say is people like different things....thank god.

P.S. Intrude away - conversation can only help understanding

Bear rescues a speciality!

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

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
What disturbs me about Geocaching is the inability to understand that you can have just as much fun WITHOUT leaving physical evidence that you have visited a place.

Er... you're telling us what we would find fun? How do you know?

We enjoy the challenge of finding caches. If you don't understand that, fine - but just because you don't understand why we enjoy what we do, that doesn't mean we actually *don't* enjoy it, and we're all deluding ourselves.

SimonG.org

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
I think you are missing the point. What disturbs me about Geocaching is the inability to understand that you can have just as much fun WITHOUT leaving physical evidence that you have visited a place. I get great enjoyment simply taking the family out for a walk in the countryside and getting to see ancient sites along the way. You could even just use virtual caches and completely forget the physical caches - surely the experience of the place is what is important - not the plastic lunchbox?

Hope you don't mind me intruding...

Squiddo

You are not intruding, sir, and your thoughts are welcome in here. I'm glad you get all the enjoyment you need from simply visiting the places you do. I, however, don't. It is true I get enjoyment out of visiting the places, but I get even *more* enjoyment out of doing something at the same time. Horses for courses.

I suppose an analogy might be to consider a newspaper. Some people do the crossword, and some people don't. Now I know people who simply cannot understand for the life of them what anyone would get out of doing a crossword over a cup of coffee after they have read the rest of the paper like everyone else. But people DO do crosswords, and it increases the enjoyment *they* get out of the overall experience. Those who have no interest in the crossword, don't even bother turning to that page. Fine.

Same with caching. I like to add to my enjoyment of these places by being able to locate something at the same time. To do that I might have had to solve some fiendish puzzle to get the right co-ordinates, or I might have just had to look them up on the net. Whatever. Its what floats my boat! 'Just visiting' is what floats yours.. Kewl. I have no problem with that. You carry on 'just visiting' (this is starting to sound like a ruddy monopoly game...) and I'll carry on solving the puzzles as well. You carry on buying the Daily Paper for the news, and I'll buy it and do the crossword as well. Is it really that hard to comprehend?

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

January 24, 2003

I think your crossword analogy is quite apt. If the crossword was in your own paper, or one that someone had given you permission to do the crossword in, fine. If, however, the paper was in a public place, like a library, and I came along afterwards and saw that someone had come along before me and defaced the paper, I wouldn't be pleased.

Similarly with the countryside I figure. Why leave anything behind risking accusations of littering or spoiling the countryside if it is not an intrinsic part of your sport? I think the whole virtual cache idea is much more constructive and less intrusive. I''m only trying to encourage virtual caching over physical caching, not trying to stop you having your fun - sorry if it came over that way.

Squiddo

1.4k · January 24, 2003

What if the crossword had been filled in with invisible ink???

Bear rescues a speciality!

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

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:
What if the crossword had been filled in with invisible ink???

Oh Chris n Maria I worship at your feet! That is the best comeback I have seen in a *very* long time.

I couldn't have put it better myself! Pant wettingly good in fact.

Having said that, to answer Squiddo, yes in fact the physical boxes are an intrinsic part of one bit of the sport, in that we need them as repositories for the many travelbugs we move around. Travelbugs are an enjoyable part of what we do, and so we need some physical boxes to place them in. So we have a mixture of different kinds of cache...virtual, physical, locationless, etc.

January 24, 2003

splendid idea!

invisible ink = virtual cache??

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
splendid idea!

invisible ink = virtual cache??

Normal caches are "invisible" too... have you ever come across one?

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
invisible ink = virtual cache??

Or a physical cache hidden from public view - which is most of them. Those that aren't don't tend to last very long...

SimonG.org

January 24, 2003

Simon G,

I've only just noticed your photo.

Why is it that photos taken in a maternity ward always have that brown shade to them? Is there something up with the lights?

Completely off topic, but curiosity is getting the better of me.

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
splendid idea!

invisible ink = virtual cache??

No, a Virtual cache would be to fill in the crossword on another bit of paper such that you never touched the original paper at all.

Invisible ink = a well-hidden, out-of-sight, and totally unobtrusive and virtually undiscoverable (except to those who are looking for it) physical container.

Look, can we all get a life now?

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

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kouros:
Why is it that photos taken in a maternity ward always have that brown shade to them? Is there something up with the lights?

I think it's because the air is infused with a thin mist of the brown stuff which comes out of babies.

SimonG.org

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
I think your crossword analogy is quite apt.

I don't.

If you fill in a crossword, that's it as far as that particular paper is concerned, you have "destroyed the environment".

If somebody hides a geocache, the environment can be restored by simply removing it again (excepting that they put it somewhere exceptionally stupid e.g. you hide it in the fabric of an ancient monument such that damage has to be done to retrieve it).

wrt your other point. Simply walking across a piece of ground does environmental damage. Either we stop all access to nice places that might have archaelogical interest or we strike a reasonable balance. IMHO geocaching is on the right side of reasonable.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 24, 2003

>Either we stop all access to nice places that might have archaelogical interest or we strike a reasonable balance. IMHO geocaching is on the right side of reasonable.<

It's not just places of archeological interest that bother me - it's all of the countryside. I can see we're not getting very far on this, so I'll try not to push the point. I merely wanted to attempt to plant a small seed - that IMHO it would be better all round if ppl didn't leave physical caches, but instead tried to do the virtual thing where possible. If that's not for you, I can hardly stop you, but it doesn't mean I have to like what you're doing.

Thanks for listening,

Squid

x

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:

It's not just places of archeological interest that bother me - it's all of the countryside. I can see we're not getting very far on this,

I'll just say one more thing: all human activity in the country is potentially damaging - including just walking through it. You have to look at each individual activity in order to determine whether the damage is sustainable. Where we differ is in which side of the line geocaching is on.

Further, geocaching is not going to spoil your enjoyment of the countryside. Geocaches are always hidden out of view so the casual walker will have no idea that they are there. In fact there is a movement called "Cache in, Trash out" which might actually improve your enjoyment by reducing normal litter in cache areas.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Squid Tempest:
I think you are missing the point. What disturbs me about Geocaching is the inability to understand that you can have just as much fun WITHOUT leaving physical evidence that you have visited a place. I get great enjoyment simply taking the family out for a walk in the countryside and getting to see ancient sites along the way. You could even just use virtual caches and completely forget the physical caches - surely the experience of the place is what is important - not the plastic lunchbox?

Hope you don't mind me intruding...

Squiddo

Don't feel like your intruding, your opinion is as valid as any.

Now, the thing about "why leave a lunchbox?"

1) If There were no lunchboxes to find, there would be NO WAY that i would do caching. I would never get out of the house and go for a walk off my own back. But if there is a goal to doing it and yes, it is a fun thing to do, then i am definitly up for going on a walk to get a cache. The challenge of finding the caches is enough incentive to get me and many others out of the house

2)Virtuals: "they're Ok BUT..." i think that if there were no lunchboxes, a lot of people including me would probably quit. If we do that then all it is is like a huge "quiz" like the ones you get at tourist information centres.

Just my 2cents/pence/ Worth!

Mike

Michael aka 1/2 of Team Blitz

It's not a matter of win or lose...until you lose

January 24, 2003

quote:
I'll just say one more thing: all human activity in the country is potentially damaging - including just walking through it. You have to look at each individual activity in order to determine whether the damage is sustainable. Where we differ is in which side of the line geocaching is on.

Spooky - I've just posted a virtually identical message on the Mod Ant site (line-drawing metaphors included!). Synchronicity or what??

January 24, 2003

Actually, I kinda agree with Michael.

I understand the point that we should all go to these places just for the sake of it... and to be fair, I'm sure a lot of us do go to various places just for the sake of seeing them. One of my favourite spots is at Mottisfont Abbey - there are no Geocaches there (it is pay-to-enter NT property) - and one of the reasons I go is because I have family friends that live there, but I also think it is one of the most beautifully kept properties in this part of the United Kingdom.

However, visiting that spot isn't "fun" - it's nice (especially on hot days), and I never get tired of the walk around the grounds. I also enjoy myself doing it, but it's not thrills and spills.

Geocaching, on the other hand, is fun. It's takes you somewhere different everytime you play, you get to find out about new areas (often through the placers extensive local knowledge of the area) and often to beautiful spots that you frankly just wouldn't come across any other way.

But would it be the same if every single cache was virtual? No. Everyone has different reasons for it, but personally, I like reading what other people think about the area in the log book. I _like_ leaving games in the box for someone else to take at a later date.

As Michael said, if the box wasn't there, it'd feel a little like one of those hastily written Tourist Office quizes that I used to loathe when I was little. I don't mind (in fact I quite like) finding those things out as an extra, but not as the sole point of the journey.

Take for instance a cache I did yesterday - it was placed at the source of the River Hamble, where a fascinating natural phenomena occurs. There's no way that I would've found out about it if it wasn't for caching, and reading the logs of previous visitors was intriguing, if only to see how amazed everyone was by it.

I can't help but think that if it had been a virtual, I would've still been impressed, but my emotions were heightened by the fact that everyone who visited before me had felt the same.

And no, the cache is not hidden inside the natural phenomena - it most definately does not damage it in any way (and certainly far less than the concrete path that runs not ten feet away from it).

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

January 24, 2003

Thanks for all the well thought out posts and support.

We have received a reply from Mod Ant which is posted to the end of "The Plot Thickens" thread

It would seem that there is little point discussing it further and we would appreciate it if cachers posted no more defense of our pastime on their forum.

Now let's get on with what we do best, discussing and finding boxes.

Tim & June (Winchester)

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

January 24, 2003

"...surely the experience of the place is what is important - not the plastic lunchbox?"

Nope. There's got to be tupperware.

"The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money"

A Personal view from the other side

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

Join the conversation