Jump to content

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire And Oxfordshire


Deego

Recommended Posts

I received the following email through my G:UK account. I have forwarded it to Lactodorum, who will be contacting them to try and resolve it.

 

I wanted to post it on the forums to try to make as many people aware of the problem and to ensure that no more damage is done, either to the SSSI area or the reputation of geocaching.

 

Hopefully some good will come of this contact.

 

Dear Geocachers

 

I am the manager of a Bowdown Woods nature reserve near Newbury in

Berkshire (OS Sheet 174 SU 505653). This is a Site of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI) and is owned by the Berkshire,

Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT). I understand

that some of your members have been using our site. Indeed on 17th

April 2005, two individuals where found trying to locate a package at

the base of a hazel coppice. Unfortunately they were in an area where

Dormice are known to be, these are a protected species and as such it

is a criminal offence to disturb them. As you will no doubt appreciate

the primary aim of any nature reserve is to conserve wildlife by

providing a safe and quiet habitat for all its inhabitants, in relation

to a SSSI any damage (intentional or not) or disturbance is

unacceptable. As a result BBOWT have taken the decision not to

authorise any geocaching activities on any of our 90 reserves. We have

previously issued a statement to The Geocaching Association of Great

Britain to that effect. I would be grateful if you could inform your

members of our position. If you would like to discuss this further

please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your

co-operation.

 

Kate Dent (Berkshire Reserves Manager)

BBOWT Berks Office

Link to comment

Some months back I sought permission from BBOWT which was polity refused and a transcript of the letter received was placed on The Geocaching Association of Great Britain agreements page.

 

Obviously not all cacher's visit this website and therefor do not know about the agreements (or not), and will often not mention who the owner is when seeking approval. Therefor our approvers will not necessarily know if it is in a forbidden area. I don't know how feasible it is, but is it possible or practicable for such areas to be electronically mapped so that Lacto and Ecky will know if it is in such an area before approving.

 

Incidents like this do not look good for us, especially if we want to try and convince such organizations that we are responsible and try and change there attitudes in the future. I have agreed to retrieve some geotrash (not mine I hasten to add) from another BBOWT site in Oxon, so its definitely not looking good with this organization.

Link to comment
Therefor our approvers will not necessarily know if it is in a forbidden area

 

This may seem a pointed question but it's not.

 

If the onus for a cache is on the setter, what's the point of an approver?

What does the approver do ?

 

I've only been caching a few months but have already I have been

* Sent into an active cemetery looking for clues.

* Found a cache hidden behind a gravestone.

* Know of a cache owner who openly admits he didn't acquire permission for his cache.

Link to comment

I don't think we should be trying to win these guys over, there are some areas where you just shouldn't have people poking around in bushes and undergrowth for tupperware and surely a managed nature reserve/SSSI is one of them?

 

I'm happy to volunteer time to come up with a technological solution for logging "out of bounds" areas, so that moderators (and setters) can do a quick lookup. GAGB already has a database of shapefiles for some "agreed" areas, does it not? Could that be used, adapted, enhanced etc...

Edited by lordelph
Link to comment
Not good. :ph34r:

 

Mind you, with the correct approaches made, I don't see that geocaching is any more harmful than all the walking, dogs, cycling, picnicing and other activities they do allow. Hard to persuade them of this after the fact though.

I think the problem, at least in theory, is the non-finding - specifically the trampling, removal of undergrowth, etc. That's also one of the reasons why buried caches are banned globally.

 

That said, I doubt if five cachers a month cause the same amount of undergrowth devastation or rodent deaths as 50 dogs a day.

Link to comment

Thanks to Deego for bringing this to our attention. I have archived the cache and have changed the co-ordinates to somewhere outside the reserve.

 

I shall be contacting the BBOWT but I suspect they will not be amenable to caches on their land. That is their decision and we will certainly do our best to comply with their wishes.

 

Lordelf, if you can work with Teasel and come up with something that we reviewers can use to identify out of bounds areas that would be brilliant!!

 

If anyone else owns a cache on BBOWT land would you please remove them and archive the caches.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Therefor our approvers will not necessarily know if it is in a forbidden area

 

This may seem a pointed question but it's not.

 

If the onus for a cache is on the setter, what's the point of an approver?

What does the approver do ?

 

I've only been caching a few months but have already I have been

* Sent into an active cemetery looking for clues.

* Found a cache hidden behind a gravestone.

* Know of a cache owner who openly admits he didn't acquire permission for his cache.

Welcome to the sport and I'm glad you've found the caches you have. When you come to place your first cache I trust you'll read the guidelines first. You might also check out the UK Specific guidelines.

 

As for your point about graveyards, this has been debated several times in the past in different forums and certainly in the UK there is no ban on placing caches discreetly nor using memorials to gather clues. If you are uncomfortable doing this I suggest you don't do caches that require you to go into graveyards. There are plenty of other caches you can attempt.

 

It is incumbent on all cache submitters to satisfy themselves that it is permissible to place caches where they have.

 

As for why do we Reviewers (not approvers any more :D ) exist, well it's simple. It's make life as difficult as possible for cache placers :ph34r:

 

Seriously though, we do our best to ensure that the guidelines are met when new caches come up for review. As well as the landowner permission question we plot every new one on a large scale map to look at the location, check the distance from other caches, make sure the co-ords are reasonable, we check for possible holiday caches, we look for inappropriate contents and so on. Also we try to work with landowners to gain blanket permission (as do others) and we act as a focal point for problems (such as this one).

 

Some may consider us overpaid for what we do but I think you'll find all reviewers would do what they do for a half or even a quarter of their current salary :lol:

Link to comment
we plot every new one on a large scale map to look at the location, check the distance from other caches, make sure the co-ords are reasonable

 

I had a vision of you going out and physically doing each new cache.

Now I think about it, not very practical. :ph34r:

 

A thankless task. You deserve twice, no make that three times the money you get. :D

Link to comment
we plot every new one on a large scale map to look at the location, check the distance from other caches, make sure the co-ords are reasonable

 

I had a vision of you going out and physically doing each new cache.

Now that would be an inducement - I might even get to overtake Seasider if we did that. And my FTF count would go through the roof :D:lol:

 

I've asked Groundspeak and they're happy to take your suggestion on board so I'm now getting 3 times as much as I did before :ph34r:

Link to comment
I don't know how feasible it is, but is it possible or practicable for such areas to be electronically mapped so that Lacto and Ecky will know if it is in such an area before approving.

There's already this facility on the GLAD database provided by GAGB - the problem is getting the data.

 

Sometimes (such as for Cheshire County Council) the landowner gives us shapefiles containing the boundary of the area in question; sometimes (such as for Staffordshire Wildlife Trust), they refuse. Where the area is easily obtainable from OS maps (eg the New Forest), I have been able to manually trace the boundary into the system. But locating and tracing out all 90 BBOWT reserves isn't something I fancy taking on myself - any volunteers?!

 

Outlines of SSSIs are now available from MAGIC, and I've been sent a dataset of SAMs from English Nature. But both of these are already checked by the approvers when new caches are placed, so they'd only be useful for locating existing caches which break the UK cache approvers' local guidelines. But existing caches are "grandfathered" and not generally removed just because new local guidelines have been adopted.

 

Is there any merit behind the idea of archiving any cache which would no longer be approved under current guidelines? Is it appropriate to allow geocaches to stay on SSSIs / SAMs (animal holes / dry stone walls?) without explicit permission from the landowner?

Link to comment
I don't think we should be trying to win these guys over, there are some areas where you just shouldn't have people poking around in bushes and undergrowth for tupperware and surely a managed nature reserve/SSSI is one of them?

 

I agree, but there are also area's that they manage that are not SSSI. I feel that showing we can behave, there may be scope for caches on these other area's, rather then a straight NO to all caches.

Edited by Deego
Link to comment
Our Bowdown Woods cache GCM5Q7, was purposely not placed in the Nature Reserve area and has had 25 finders since November 2004. However, in light of this email to GC.com, have temporarily disabled the cache and removed it from the site.

Many thanks for taking this very responsible and helpful action. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Wouldn't the nature of the SSSI have a bearing on the suitability for caching. Not all SSSI's are related to wildlife who could be disturbed etc. Some are geological or geomorphic for example. In those cases, unless we started to bash rocks with a hammer, I see no harm. Perhaps we should be cautious about a blanket ban on all of these areas.

 

Martin & Lynn

Link to comment

 

Is there any merit behind the idea of archiving any cache which would no longer be approved under current guidelines? Is it appropriate to allow geocaches to stay on SSSIs / SAMs (animal holes / dry stone walls?) without explicit permission from the landowner?

On a different thread we have been discussing the rate of growth of new cache placements.

 

Given that the numbers of new caches being set are in excess of 400 per month, this may be worth considering - it's not like we will go short of caches to find..

 

It would also open up the immediate area for a new cache within todays guidelines.

 

Cache owners may have a different opinions, but in the light of the above it's hard to see many disagreeing.

Link to comment
Our Bowdown Woods cache GCM5Q7, was purposely not placed in the Nature Reserve area and has had 25 finders since November 2004. However, in light of this email to GC.com, have temporarily disabled the cache and removed it from the site.

Hang on... !

 

Your own cache page states that it IS (was) in the Reserve... "The Cache is located in Bowdown Woods, a Nature Reserve North Of Greenham Common."

 

The OS map of the area clearly shows the wood to be a Nature Reserve, and a plot of the co-ordinates places the cache within the apparent boundary of that reserve - a boundary confirmed on BBOWT's own website.

 

-Wlw.

Link to comment
Wouldn't the nature of the SSSI have a bearing on the suitability for caching. Not all SSSI's are related to wildlife who could be disturbed etc. Some are geological or geomorphic for example. In those cases, unless we started to bash rocks with a hammer, I see no harm. Perhaps we should be cautious about a blanket ban on all of these areas.

Indeed, and there are a number of caches on SSSIs and SAMs which were placed with the blessing (and sometimes the assistance) of the landowners. It would be wrong to say these should be removed.

 

Whilst I would certainly not advocate more rigorously enforcing the "seek permission from the landowner" rule for all caches, I personally would support a decision not to list any caches on SSSIs and SAMs, unless the landowner knows and approves.

Link to comment
Our Bowdown Woods cache GCM5Q7, was purposely not placed in the Nature Reserve area and has had 25 finders since November 2004.  However, in light of this email to GC.com, have temporarily disabled the cache and removed it from the site.

Hang on... !

 

Your own cache page states that it IS (was) in the Reserve... "The Cache is located in Bowdown Woods, a Nature Reserve North Of Greenham Common."

 

The OS map of the area clearly shows the wood to be a Nature Reserve, and a plot of the co-ordinates places the cache within the apparent boundary of that reserve - a boundary confirmed on BBOWT's own website.

 

-Wlw.

Sorry yes our cache was within the Nature Reserve however, we deliberately placed it away from any of the fenced off areas protecting wildlife and made sure it was reasonably close to a path.

Link to comment
Whilst I would certainly not advocate more rigorously enforcing the "seek permission from the landowner" rule for all caches, I personally would support a decision not to list any caches on SSSIs and SAMs, unless the landowner knows and approves.

And what would be wrong with proper "enforcement" of the rules (guidelines) about permissions?

 

If all new caches are being placed responsibly and with appropriate permission where necessary (as they should be), then there would be no adverse affect on the hobby, would there?

 

Whether the guidelines are actually being applied, or merely being paid lip service to, is another question entirely.

Link to comment
Some may consider us overpaid for what we do but I think you'll find all reviewers would do what they do for a half or even a quarter of their current salary  :D

I recon you deserve double :ph34r:

Have you any idea how much beer costs these days? It's bad enough forking out for TWO pints (one for each reviewer!), but making it FOUR.... heck, it's enough to bankrupt a chap! :D:rolleyes:

Link to comment
I don't see that geocaching is any more harmful than all the walking, dogs, cycling, picnicing and other activities they do allow.

Quite agree.

How many reports do we see with 'lots of dogwalkers about' in the log? Many I feel. Some sites of this kind have many, many visits by dogs taking their owners walking every day, yet a couple of visits a week by geocachers is taboo?

Crazy!

Oh yes I'll edit this to bring to your attention my signature... :rolleyes:

Edited by The Dewdrops
Link to comment
I personally would support a decision not to list any caches on SSSIs and SAMs, unless the landowner knows and approves.

Hmmm, before any decisions are made, we need to understand how big the impact of archiving these caches would be...

 

I personally had not realised quite how many SSSIs there are out there, nor how many geocaches they contain. Now, having downloaded from English Nature the full 248MB file of SSSI boundaries, and overlayed the caches, the full scale of the problem has become apparent. For example, here's where I live...

 

sssi.gif

 

So that's maybe half of my local caches which would be for the chop! And, yes, some of mine are in there! It's a similar story across the country - for example here's a bit of Hampshire...

 

sssi2.gif

 

Hmmm...

Edited by Teasel
Link to comment

a couple of points:

 

sssi geocaches. i've one in english nature site. i got the local manager onside explaining all the details. then after i has a rough idea of where i wanted it placed, he came with me. we chatted and he helped narrow down the exact spot. that way he was happy that retreival wouldn't disturb any birds/wildlife rare plants etc. it's worth speaking to the wildlife trust to see if they can help in a similar way. if they are completely against then so be it.

 

NEW FOREST. several of the new ones don't have any links to the guidelines and atleast one is in a bin bag. we will loose the agreement dadgum quick if we don't stickto it. also the tourists will be coming soon who will not know the finer points like no night time caching. please double check any you have placed or were going to place to make sure they stick to the rules and link to the guidelines. :lol:

 

cheers, just me being selfish, hate to loose all the potential finds in the forest, saves me loads on petrol if they're closer!

Link to comment

Teasel's post is interesting - I've done a few of the Hampshire caches and I wouldn't have known they were is SSSI.

 

Given that an SSSI could be for an unusual rock formation, then I suppose a blanket ban would be unfair, but I have to agree with the view that landowner permission needs to be an essential.

 

Nobby makes two points - landowner permission being one and the second is the New Forest, for which I am equally concerned as the rules appear to be slackening and as it's an annually renewable permission it's easy to see whats going to happen.

 

If the New Forest guidelines, which are easy, well known and the consequences are also feared, aren't being followed then the chances of others being followed have to be slim.

 

Perhaps the reviewers should revert to being approvers and having specific permission to place the cache is a requirement prior to approval.

 

It'll slow things down, but in the main it'll keep the countryside open.

Link to comment

 

Perhaps the reviewers should revert to being approvers and having specific permission to place the cache is a requirement prior to approval.

 

No need, in the guidelines it states quite clearly.......

 

"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. "

 

.....where there could be doubt we always ask for reassurance on the matter.

 

Where SSI's, FC, NF, Nature reserves are mentioned, or looking at the location on the 1:25000 or 1:50000 maps raises a query, unless there is a mention of permission, we ask for reassurance.

 

The thought that only lip service is given to considering the guidelines when reviewing caches is incorrect :lol: , as those of you that have been in receipt of our tedious queries will testify :D

Link to comment
The thought that only lip service is given to considering the guidelines when reviewing caches is incorrect :D , as those of you that have been in receipt of our tedious queries will testify :D

Really?

OK then - let's forget permissions for the moment, and consider "Cache Permanence", instead...

 

Is there any cause for concern about this cache: GCN367 - apart from the fact that the cache is 2.9Km away from the stated co-ordinates, of course. :lol:

 

Hint: look at the hint.

 

-Wlw.

Link to comment
Perhaps the reviewers should revert to being approvers and having specific permission to place the cache is a requirement prior to approval.

 

Newbie questions :lol:

 

What's the difference between a reviewer and approver ?

When did approvers become reviewers and why ?

Isn't 'permission to place' a requirement already ?

 

PS Hopefully I'll start answering instead of asking soon :D

Link to comment
Really?

OK then - let's forget permissions for the moment, and consider "Cache Permanence", instead...

 

Is there any cause for concern about this cache: GCN367 - apart from the fact that the cache is 2.9Km away from the stated co-ordinates, of course. :lol:

 

Hint: look at the hint.

 

-Wlw.

Yes there IS cause for concern, both on a permanence basis and on a questionable co-ordinates basis. I am grateful to you for bringing it to our attention. I would suggest that an e-mail through my profile (or from your personal address list) would bring a quicker and guaranteed response but I do my best to read all forum posts eventually.

 

I think this highlights that neither are reviewers perfect, nor can we be expected to have an intimate knowledge of every possible cache location in the country. We rely on the knowledge and experience of fellow cachers to help us out when things are not right.

 

So if anyone reading this thread has a concern about any particular cache please let us know. Until we know there is a problem we can't try and fix it :D

Link to comment
Perhaps the reviewers should revert to being approvers and having specific permission to place the cache is a requirement prior to approval.

 

Newbie questions :lol:

 

What's the difference between a reviewer and approver ?

When did approvers become reviewers and why ?

Isn't 'permission to place' a requirement already ?

 

PS Hopefully I'll start answering instead of asking soon :D

Reviewers USED to be called Approvers until a question was raised as to a possible liability problem if we tacitly "Approved" caches rather than reviewing them for compliance with the guidelines. It was suggested that if ever there was a problem with a cacher getting hurt etc. there may be a case to answer if we had "Approved" a cache placement.

 

As far a permission is concerned, as Eckington pointed out earlier in this thread:

 

in the guidelines it states quite clearly.......

 

"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. "

 

i.e. When you submit a cache we assume that you have complied with the requirement unless there is something to suggest otherwise. In such a case, e.g. mention of a SSSI, we will normally seek clarification.

Link to comment

 

The thought that only lip service is given to considering the guidelines when reviewing caches is incorrect :lol: , as those of you that have been in receipt of our tedious queries will testify :D

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant to imply if I did.

 

My feeling is that some cache placers probably don't know about the general guidelines and/or the location specific guidelines.

 

Perhaps too much faith is put in the cache placer and the reviewers could be a bit more probing.

 

- I appreciate there is a logistical problem here, but I am pleased to learn that 'tedious enquiries' happen

 

Adrian

Edited by Kitty Hawk
Link to comment
I personally would support a decision not to list any caches on SSSIs and SAMs, unless the landowner knows and approves.

Hmmm, before any decisions are made, we need to understand how big the impact of archiving these caches would be...

 

I personally had not realised quite how many SSSIs there are out there, nor how many geocaches they contain. Now, having downloaded from English Nature the full 248MB file of SSSI boundaries, and overlayed the caches, the full scale of the problem has become apparent. For example, here's where I live...

 

So that's maybe half of my local caches which would be for the chop! And, yes, some of mine are in there! It's a similar story across the country - for example here's a bit of Hampshire...

 

Hmmm...

I had a look at this a while ago. I use the English Nature shape files to avoid the SSSIs in my area.

 

There are 82 of 676 caches in SU that fall within an SSSI. And 23 of 492 in SP.

 

That's 12% of caches in SU! Of course this could include the starting coords of multi-caches which are outside the SSSI.

Link to comment

This "sword" thats being used , "its a SSSI" ....is really a red herring.... 13% of Scotland is a SSSI as of Nov.2004...... if It says Ben ? or Loch ? you can virtually guarentee its an SSSI...... eg Ben Nevis and most of "The West Highland Way ..... and it doesnt mean its the last place on earth for Wullie MacLumphers lesser spotted orchid and you cant go there , quite the opposite , it means that the landowners must consult with Scotish Natural Heritage before change of use..... ..eg drainage or felling or cropping ...

 

Please dont confuse "SSSi" with the decision taken by a Trust to prohibit geocacaching on their land .....

 

ps as an aside, there have been some major changes to access legislation in the last few years in particular ..Scottish Outdoor Access Code and " right to roam" or what ever its called ....and I'm doubtful that the guidlines we currently work to reflect them . Isn't it time that some Professional advice was obtained ? Shouldn't Groundspeak cough up some of the premium membership funds it receives ?

 

right...rant over ...I'll get me coat :lol:

Link to comment
Lordelf, if you can work with Teasel and come up with something that we reviewers can use to identify out of bounds areas that would be brilliant!!

I take it you don't consider SSSIs as "out of bounds"?

 

A recent email to GAGB from another Ranger in the Berkshire area started:

Your guidelines stipulate that no cache should be left on a SSSI...

But that's not actually correct. The UK guidelines (GC.com, GAGB and HCC) simply say

No cache may be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any SSSI or SAM

 

Initially I imagined that SSSIs might affect just a couple of dozen caches in particularly sensitive areas, and that re-checking would reveal that maybe only half of these were placed with the blessing of the landowner (eg those placed by Mancunian, Tim&June and TheCat). If that were the case then, for the sake of good PR, we might consider archiving the remainder unless/until permission could be gained.

 

But I'm coming to realise that SSSIs affect many hundreds of UK caches and that attempting to recheck which ones were / were not placed with the landowner's permission, and whether they risk damage or disturbance to the site, is not realistic.

Link to comment

<rant>

 

Right. Two points, and then I'll shut up.

 

'Public' areas are being taken over by bureaucrats - scared of litigation/liability/p!$$ing off the latest save the snail group. Blanket bans of activities like ours can not possibly be justified in their own charters - they need to recognise this. Individual cases, such as the original post, are a completely different story. Which brings me to point two:

 

GAGB has an absolutely fantastic resource for identifying land ownership and preexisiting permissions/bans. WHY DO CACHE PLACERS CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT? For goodness' sake. It's not that hard.

 

</rant>

 

Flame away...

Link to comment

 

GAGB has an absolutely fantastic resource for identifying land ownership and preexisiting permissions/bans.  WHY DO CACHE PLACERS CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT?  For goodness' sake.  It's not that hard.

 

Exactly. But people are people. Some cachers don't know there's a forum here.

 

Some people are perfectly good at doing what they are told, but unless they are told they won't do it and telling someone where to look is not good enough, you have to tell them what they would read once they got there.

Edited by Kitty Hawk
Link to comment

Time to put SSSIs and Wildlife Trusts into perspective

 

I know Bowdown Woods and have done the cache there. I have also done a number of other caches in wildlife reserves etc. Since Nov 29th there have been 36 log entries at this cache ( not all of them visits ).

 

The issue of disturbance is specious. In Bowdown there are NO restrictions placed on where to roam and NO notices to that effect. The public are invited to enjoy the woods. One geocacher every four or five days is not the issue - nor candidly are dozens of dog walkers each day letting their hounds off the leash ( as they do ).

 

These areas are publicly accessible and the funding in many cases is contingent upon them being publicly accessible.

 

There is an issue of ownership of the land and what the owner concurs to. If the owner is happy with dogs frightening dormice daily but fearful of geocachers doing it intermittently ( if at all ) - candidly that is the owners problem - and the owner(s) may need psychological help.

 

I would say to the wildlife trust lobby - GROW UP. I would say to geocachers - ensure that your permissions are in place.

Link to comment
I would say to the wildlife trust lobby - GROW UP. I would say to geocachers - ensure that your permissions are in place.

I've negotiated permission to place caches with private landowners AND with two public agencies.

 

I can assure you that suggesting they (or any other interested party) should "Grow Up", is not a good position from which to negotiate.

 

Luckily, you grasped the point in the very last line of that post..

 

... it's not about Dormice - it's about people acting responsibly.

 

-Wlw.

Link to comment

but it is about the doormice.

 

the fact is that most if not all sites can have a cache but only if care is taken in the placing with help and advice from the managers/ rangers/ owners. i'm not tree hugger but why should my HOBBY endanger/disturb etc protected or endangered wildlife animal or vegtable?

 

yes some of the rangers etc take life far too seriously but they do a good job and sometimes get a little narrow minded and little hitlerish withtheir domain. a little gentle talking usually brings them around and if not then move on. we may be a small island but not that small.

 

my fear for the new forest is that i can think of one which is in a plastic bag. not allowed.

atleast three others that make no mention of the guidelines. if tourists or unknowing locals start nightcaching, cycling to caches, going cross country then when the review comes up they'll just ban us.

they go online. they read the cache details. they've removed caches before so thy know how to use a gps. once we loose it it'll be almost impossible to get it back.

permissions are difficult to obtain, impossible to get back because someone decided they were too imprtant to stick to such and such rule.

 

please have consideration for other cachers if not the people responsible for these sites.

 

rant over, i'll get me coat

Link to comment
Is there any cause for concern about this  cache: GCN367 - apart from the fact that the cache is 2.9Km away from the stated co-ordinates, of course.  :laughing:

 

-Wlw.

[sorry...taking this OT for a minute - I'm an interested party on this cache]

 

The cache is 2.9km away? It is? Have you found the cache Wlw?

Edited by JRM-IRL
Link to comment

Became curious about the cache that is the original topic of this thread .

 

See part of one of the logs reads

 

Made sure that I covered the cache well with the material that had initially been covering it, though I'm not sure that pulling up handfulls of moss is a good idea, as it will soon die and dry out, and blow away.

 

I'm also not sure that pulling up handfulls of moss in a nature reserve /SSSI is a good idea !

Link to comment

I think all of this raises a bigger question... how much can the individual cacher be trusted with the "must obtain permission" specification, and also, "how much do the approvers/reviewers/moderators actually approve/review/moderate".

 

Now don't all have a go at me for bucking the status quo, but consider what I have said.

Link to comment
I think all of this raises a bigger question... how much can the individual cacher be trusted with the "must obtain permission" specification, and also, "how much do the approvers/reviewers/moderators actually approve/review/moderate".

Well, they definitely "moderate."

 

One of my posts got moderated this week (quite rightly) because it was full of rancour, wickedness and spite.

 

A number of quick-fingered people PM'd me to say how much they enjoyed it... B)

 

-Wlw.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...