New Review Procedure

[Lactodorum]

You may have gathered from the recent postings about landowner permission discussions that with the growth of Geocaching in the UK (and Ireland) that the sport is becoming ever more "visible" to the world at large. As a consequence, Eckington and I are getting an ever growing number of requests from various landowners to "do something" about existing caches. This ranges from the fairly positive "we are happy with the cache but we would like to have been asked" to "we want this cache and all others on our land archived and the container removed immediately". I have spent a large proportion of the last two days working on a number of such concerns. This is in addition to my normal reviewing/moderating activities. Fortunately I have had the time to do this.

 

Eckington and I have discussed the changing situation at some length and we have agreed that we need to change our procedures to try and ease things. A common theme has emerged in all the enquiries we have received and that is simply that the landowners have not received any request to place caches on their land, nor have they given permission. Everybody reading this post is well aware of the general Geocaching.com guidelines and in particular the Section on Off-limit (Physical) Caches In particular this statement:

 

"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived."

 

When you submit your cache you indicate to the reviewers that you have complied with this requirement by ticking the "I have permission" box. As well as the GC.COM guidelines we have adopted a set of "Best Practice Guidelines", which were originally developed by the GAGB, in the Uk to help with UK specific situations.

 

As far as the mechanics of the review process is concerned, this is what we have done up to now. When a cache arrives in the review queue we assume that permission has been obtained. We first check the listing to make sure it is in line with GC.COM guidelines. If not, for instance it may be an inappropriate virtual cache or too close to an existing cache, we usually put it on hold and e-mail the owner suggesting changes. We then plot the co-ordinates on an "Electronic map" to check for anything untoward. We also look for attempts to place a "holiday" cache too far from a person's normal base. Finally we look for breaches of the UK guidelines, such as a cache being placed in a Dry Stone Wall and again we would normally hold the cache and e-mail the owner. At the same time we try to be aware of agreements with local/national bodies and if the cache is covered by such an agreement, for instance it may be in a Forestry Commission wood, we hold the cache again until the requirements of the agreement are met. Once everything is OK we then list it on the website.

 

In those cases when a cache has been held, if the original problem cannot be resolved we archive the listing. Unfortunately putting caches on temporary hold during this problem resolution is also starting to cause us problems as not everybody replies to our e-mails. This means we have to go through each one trying to match responses (or lack of them) to each cache. As more and more get held this takes longer and longer.

 

We are proposing to try and streamline the process as outlined below.

 

We will continue to make the same sort of checks as before but from now on if there is a problem we will immediately "Archive" the cache with a full explanation of the problem. We will consider this archiving only to be a temporary measure until our queries have been answered. We will expect that the cache owner will reply to us via e-mail (and this will be mentioned in the archive note). If and when the problem has been sorted out we will unarchive the cache and list it. The advantage to us is that we won't have a large list (currently two whole pages) of caches on hold which we must keep checking. If the cache owner doesn't get back to us by e-mail, the cache just "dies", so the onus is very much on the cache owner to contact us.

 

In addition to the existing checks we shall be looking for situations where it is obvious that a landowner needs to have given permission for the cache. This could be because it is on Forestry Commission land, on a SSSI or Nature reserve, in a local authority owned/managed Country Park etc.

 

In all such cases, if you have permission you should include details in the Note to Reviewers' section at the bottom of the cache submission page. That way we can list the cache straight away. If there is no mention of permission we will temproarily "Archive" these as well.

 

Hopefully this should mean that the majority of caches can be reviewed more quickly and should lead to fewer queries from disgruntled landowners.

 

Remember, we want your caches to be listed! It makes our lives ever so much easier if we can read through a new cache submission and just "press the button" to list it.

[Nediam]

Sounds fair enough

 

Well done for all yours and Eckingtons hard work

[markandlynn]

No problem with that.

Do you need an update on mine that is holding an area pending permision. It will be at least another three weeks before i get the official go ahead BTW.

[+dino-irl]

All good changes IMO. Thanks for doing this and also thanks to those people who highlighted the problem and acted as a catalyst for this change.

[+CuplaKiwis]

Positive steps forward.

 

Is there a way that UK cachers can be notified of this change via their accounts, as obviously the people who frequent this place are only a small proportion of the total number of cachers...

 

Well done chaps - the effort is appreciated.

[+The J J Noodle Fan Club]

In addition to the existing checks we shall be looking for situations where it is obvious that a landowner needs to have given permission for the cache. This could be because it is on Forestry Commission land, on a SSSI or Nature reserve, in a local authority owned/managed Country Park etc.

Does this mean there are situations where a landowner does not have to have given permission? (Just asking - not making a point or anything).

 

Jon.

[+Team Maddie UK]

Well done chaps - the effort is appreciated. big_smile.gif

 

That goes for us as well guys. In the light of recent problems and so on Lynn and I think that your solution is more than reasonable. I can only imagine how much work you guys must put in doing this stuff especially with the rapidly increasing numbers of cachers and caches.

 

Martin & Lynn

[Lactodorum]

Is there a way that UK cachers can be notified of this change via their accounts, as obviously the people who frequent this place are only a small proportion of the total number of cachers...

Unfortunately I don't know a way to do this. I did wonder about putting a link to the UK forum (or the forums in general) on all my cache pages. That way anyone who looks at one of those caches will be made aware of the forums.

 

Anyway, people submitting caches that don't follow the guidelines will soon find out about it

[+Haggis Hunter]

How about asking Jeremy if a new box on the form can be implemented, such as something along the lines of 'permission details' or 'name, address and telephone number of person granting permission'.

 

That way this will get implemented worldwide and not just the UK.

 

Just a thought??

[+harrogate hunters]

As a placer of a number of caches now I think this is a good step in the right direction. Every cache of mine has permission from the landowner and yes sometimes it takes months to meet, agree etc etc

 

I make a point of forwarding in my submission report the landowners name and in some cases contact telephone numbers to prove to Eck & Lact......

 

If we all get approval why don't all the UK cachers do the same......

 

We all know that (I am guessing) that a good percentage of current UK caches do not have permission..... so come on UK cachers, lets make the UK outstanding...

 

Lets take the game/sport/addiction into the next century with landowners agreements in every case !

 

(Just my views)

[+Birders]

Methinks we're about to see UK cache numbers drop by about 50%!

 

On the general subject of reviewing, have the rules been changed about distance between caches please? A new cache has appeared near us which appears to be less than 50m from an established cache of a similar type....?

[+Kitty Hawk]

Sounds good to me.

[+John Stead]

I did wonder about putting a link to the UK forum (or the forums in general) on all my cache pages. That way anyone who looks at one of those caches will be made aware of the forums.

I'd be happy to do that too if it is generally thought a good idea and someone could tell me how.

 

I certainly think that your new way of working makes good sense and I hope it makes life easier for you.

 

I endorse too HH's giving of details of landowner when he submits caches for approval for the eyes only of the reviewer and will try to remember to do the same. Now my only problem is remembering which of my old caches did not have any permission as I am sure that some of them were down before we worried about such things.

[+third-degree-witch]

no complaints from us,to be crystal clear with cache placers and landowners can only be a good thing.

[+Eckington]

I have only just got in and read the thread.

 

I would like to add that Lactod has done all the hard ground work here and I am whole heartedly in support of the way he has published our discussions to you all.

 

Thank you for the support you have shown us in this thread, it is greatly appreciated.

 

Finally a public thakyou to the cache setter who's cache I reviewed this morning and in his note to reviewers said (paraphrased a bit I am afraid):

 

"Hi Eck,

 

The final cache is at N ww* ww.www W ee* ee.eee

 

It is not in a field as streetmap shows, a small wood has grown there and is owned by Borset City Council. I have a standing agreement with them for placing caches on their land."

 

If all the notes were that infomative reviewing would be a hoot

 

Dave Eckythump

[+Flyfishermanbob]

Methinks we're about to see UK cache numbers drop by about 50%!

 

On the general subject of reviewing, have the rules been changed about distance between caches please?  A new cache has appeared near us which appears to be less than 50m from an established cache of a similar type....?

 

Or the kick start to Terracaching ?

[Lactodorum]

On the general subject of reviewing, have the rules been changed about distance between caches please? A new cache has appeared near us which appears to be less than 50m from an established cache of a similar type....?

No - the rules are the same. Can you e-mail details and I'll check it out.

[+Simply Paul]

Is there a way that UK cachers can be notified of this change via their accounts, as obviously the people who frequent this place are only a small proportion of the total number of cachers...

Unfortunately I don't know a way to do this. I did wonder about putting a link to the UK forum (or the forums in general) on all my cache pages. That way anyone who looks at one of those caches will be made aware of the forums.

 

Anyway, people submitting caches that don't follow the guidelines will soon find out about it

You could use the signature feature of your mail program (Outlook, or whatever) to add a link to the UK forums and any other pages/bodies/organisations' web sites that you want to the bottom of every email sent from the Lacto account.

 

Just a thought.

 

SP

[+McDeHack]

Is there a list of where and from whom permission has been granted.

I am thinking of my area such as Epping Forest. There are a number of caches in the forest and as far as I know no permission has been granted.

When I first started geocaching I was told that the 'conservitors of the forest' classed caches as litter and was forbidden.

Don't ask me to try to get permission from them as they know of me in the past, and problems that I had trying to get permission for another 'game'.

Edited May 5, 2005 by McDeHack

[+shunra]

I'm not from the UK, so I apologize for butting in. The suggested measures seem good and useful, but I suggest one change. Archiving a cache, even with explanation, makes it invisible to the community. Essentially, it archives the listing, but leaves the container out there in an aunapproved place, turning it into geolitter.

 

I suggest that rather than archiving, you place a note, asking the next finder to remove the container, post a Find, and THEN post an SBA, confirming that the container has been removed. You can then proceed and archive, without negative impact.

[Lactodorum]

I'm not from the UK, so I apologize for butting in. The suggested measures seem good and useful, but I suggest one change. Archiving a cache, even with explanation, makes it invisible to the community. Essentially, it archives the listing, but leaves the container out there in an aunapproved place, turning it into geolitter.

 

I suggest that rather than archiving, you place a note, asking the next finder to remove the container, post a Find, and THEN post an SBA, confirming that the container has been removed. You can then proceed and archive, without negative impact.

Thanks for the suggestion but until a cache is listed (or "Approved") it isn't visible anyway. What we are talking about is dealing with new caches during the review process.

[Team CharlieParker]

I got approval for my one and only cache but only verbally so far, I am awaiting a written confirmation but thought it would be ok to get it listed on verbal approval. I'm kind of worried now!

 

I think the new review guidelines are very fair! I will also start local negotiations with some people for general approval, let's try and extend the GAGB list and make life even easier for everyone; cachers, reviewers and local agencies/authorities.

[60North]

I am unsure if the caches that I have adopted have permission from the landowner. Should i uplift them and move them to locations where I can seek permission?

[+spioradsaor]

In some circumstances it is virtually impossible to track down a landowner for permission...in others...permission has been given by the landowner only for the brother of said landowner to give cachers grief re"naebody asked me" well they didnt cos hey didnt need to ask him....However as much as i am all in favour of correct procedures if they become too cumbersome...well what the heck...I('ll go sailing and ultimately geocaching will die a death...as in Health & safety Exuctive guidelines...if i set a cache will I need to fill in a risk assesment form in case anyone doing my cache crashes on the A9 before getting to the actual site.....dont change wot doesnt need fixed.

[SlytherinAlex]

However as much as i am all in favour of correct procedures if they become too cumbersome...well what the heck...I'll go sailing and ultimately geocaching will die a death...

There's the rub. All land belongs to someone and it seems that common land does too so unless to place your cache in your own front graden then it needs permission from someone. Well best of luck!! Tracking down landowners in Scotland in dadgum near impossible in parts as most of it is owned by faceless multinational companies or pretentious pop stars.

 

In England, best of luck too. My local council owns the local country park I think, at least they have their signs plastered all over the place, so that's easy enough. But who owns the strip of land at the side of my house? It's taken the council two months so far to work out who owns that and they still haven't made up their minds. It "could" be theirs, they "might" have bought it when the stuck a new road into a housing estate 20 years ago. "Try highways" is their best advice at the moment, so I'm no wiser.

 

Looking at where some of my current caches are: one is stuck in an abandoned tyre at the bottom of a car park 10 miles from anywhere and 34 miles from council HQ. Is it council land? Do the Highways Agency own it? Are they going to send someone out to take a look if I ask for permission? I doubt it. Who cares, they haven't emptied the rubbish bin in the car park for three years.

 

So, where there are areas like country parks, NT property and Forestry land, it's clear cut. Easy to know who owns land, but who owns the little nook in the base of a tree half a mile up a public footpath in North Yorkshire?

 

-

Edited May 6, 2005 by SlytherinAlex

[+Happy Humphrey]

He might not have been keen to spell this out, but I take it from Lacky's post that cases such as in Slytherin's example of a tyre at the bottom of a car park, the question of permission would not arise.

 

In addition to the existing checks we shall be looking for situations where it is In addition to the existing checks we shall be looking for situations where it is obvious that a landowner needs to have given permission for the cache. This could be because it is on Forestry Commission land, on a SSSI or Nature reserve, in a local authority owned/managed Country Park etc.

 

In all such cases, if you have permission you should include details in the Note to Reviewers' section at the bottom of the cache submission page. That way we can list the cache straight away. If there is no mention of permission we will temproarily "Archive" these as well.

 

In the "tyre" situation, it seems that it isn't "obvious that a landowner needs to have given permission for the cache" so I wouldn't expect the reviewer to insist on details of permission. There are bound to be many cases - particularly away from heavily-populated areas - where the cacher's local knowledge is sufficient to guarantee that the cache will cause no problems.

 

More important than seeking permission for this type of place would be to ensure that the cache is well-hidden and clearly labelled, and has an approach which is legal and will not encourage damage to the surrounding area.

 

An example I recently visited would be Atlantic Whirlpool: only two visitors this year, on unused land near a cliff edge, accessed easily via a footpath then by climbing over a few large boulders, then placed deep under a big rock and hidden by stones. As far as I know, permission was obtained - but if it wasn't, I don't imagine the landowner would ever know about the cache (or care).

 

HH

[+Eckington]

.........Yup

[+sTeamTraen]

How about asking Jeremy if a new box on the form can be implemented, such as something along the lines of 'permission details' or 'name, address and telephone number of person granting permission'.

 

That way this will get implemented worldwide and not just the UK.

 

Just a thought??

This might be useful in places where it's relatively easy to identify who is in charge of the land. But in many countries - including plenty where the problem right now is too few caches, not too many - this simply isn't the case. It could take months to find out who is in charge, and since they have never heard of geocaching, they will adopt the standard bureaucrat's answer, which is to say "No" to anything that isn't in the manual. After all, "we might get sued if someone hurts themselves" (that's the standard way to avoid doing anything these days, I gather).

 

Even in the US, I doubt whether there is any mechanism for, say, getting permission to clunk a magnetic film canister onto a highway guard rail. And you can bet that if you did find out who owned that rail, the answer would be "No, it might be a bomb".

 

HH has it right: a cache which attracts relatively low traffic in a less-accessible place will cause fewer problems. And probably be a nicer site. A cache which causes the landowner to complain is probably either badly hidden, or placed in an environmentally sensitive area. The approvers can't be expected to spot this on day zero, but I would support a more "aggressive" policy of "if a cache gives problems, archive it and put the onus on the owner to show why it should come back".

 

Edit: By "HH" I meant "Happy Humphrey" and not "Harrogate Hunters" or "Haggis Hunter" !!

Edited May 6, 2005 by sTeamTraen

[+Teasel]

unless to place your cache in your own front graden then it needs permission from someone

Dear Mr Alexander,

 

The Bogcaster County Council acknowledge receipt of your statement of intent to place a geocash in your front garden. As the provider of a sporting facility you will, of course, have a common law duty of care towards participants. At a minimum, this will require that you satisfy the council that you have adequate public liability insurance and, of course, a minimum of 1 (one) qualified first aider must be present at all times that your facility is open to the public. Furthermore, since this facility will be provided at permanent premises owned by yourself, you will also need to comply with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Other requirements also apply and we recommend you study the documentation provided on the www.uksport.gov.uk website. A full risk assessment must be submitted to the council 21 days before commencement of provision of this sports facility.

 

Whilst this is the first "geocashing" facility within Bogcaster, we do already have a number of orienteering courses, which we understand are similar in nature to the facility you intend to provide, requiring participants to find checkpoints located on a coordinate grid. As you may be aware, a recent application by Bodgit, Killehm and Scarper Outdoor Activities Ltd to add an orienteering course to their premises was recently rejected by the council after significant opposition from local residents. There will therefore be a three month consultation period with interested parties in your locality to ensure that local opinion is heard.

 

Bogcaster County Council is proud to be an enthusiastic supporter of the ODPM's geocashing initiative. We feel we should be able to "fast track" your application and council staff will assist you in completing the necessary paperwork. All being well, you should be well on the way to providing this facility within the next six months.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Richard Farswell

BCC Recreational Development Officer

[+Manncubs]

I'm in the process of putting my first cache together.

I've got as far a getting hold of an old ammo box, bought the stickers and am now filling the box with goodies.

I havent yet filled in the form on GC.com for placing a cache.

 

I dont mean to be negative but having read some of the posts on this topic I'm now beginning to wonder if I should bother at all.

[+Teuchters]

However as much as i am all in favour of correct procedures if they become too cumbersome...well what the heck...I'll go sailing and ultimately geocaching will die a death...

There's the rub. All land belongs to someone and it seems that common land does too so unless to place your cache in your own front graden then it needs permission from someone. Well best of luck!! Tracking down landowners in Scotland in dadgum near impossible in parts as most of it is owned by faceless multinational companies or pretentious pop stars.

 

This is in no way a criticism of our moderators / approvers who have a hard enough job as it is, however, a couple of (anecdotal) short stories illustrate the point....

 

I was contacted by one of our approvers who had, in turn been approached by a prominent landowner here in Scotland. These landowners had objected to a cache being placed on their land by me without their permission. After consultation with the objecting landowners representatives, it was discovered that it wasn't their land anyway - in other words, not even some landowners know their own land!

Here in the north of Scotland, the local council employ a full time worker to track down landowners, such is the difficulty with multinationals, foreign owners and shell companies. This has been ongoing for a number of years, and the final result is still not known for extremely large areas of land. In another case, I had permission from a landowner, but was confronted by a tenant farmer who objected to a placement "on his land" - this is the point that Spior was making.

 

In my experience of asking some landowners for permission to cross their land, camp in very wild country or otherwise take responsible access, the answer has been invariably "No" in the past - for this reason, we now have a legal right to exercise responsible access to wild country imposed by a democratic parliament against some wishes of a minority of landowning interests. In my humble opinion, the placement of a small plastic box can have no more impact than a passing walker or biker who has an absolute right of access to the land. But that, of course, maybe another issue....

 

I am in no way condoning the placing of caches in obvious private property (ie parks, gardens and some forestry for example) but I can see difficulties in gaining permission for huge areas of the country that are "stewarded" on behalf of faceless absentee landlords.

[markandlynn]

I'm in the process of putting my first cache together.

I've got as far a getting hold of an old ammo box, bought the stickers and am now filling the box with goodies.

I havent yet filled in the form on GC.com for placing a cache.

 

I dont mean to be negative but having read some of the posts on this topic I'm now beginning to wonder if I should bother at all.

No worries just have look at the GAGB website and read some of the other threads here ie the permision one. It is not hard to write to landowners and you may be lucky and be placing your cache where a GAGB agreement is in place. Good Luck!

[+2202]

Surely

Its irresponsible placement which is at issue here and to date the 'sport' has progressed on the basis of responsible placement .

The problem is that placers have not bothered to even look at well placed signs, BBONT comes to mind here, and have not therefore questioned why that particular tract of land is so designated.

On an offshoot subject, we must also put ourselves forward as being 'guardians' of the countryside, and our eyes and ears should be utilised in informing any authority / landowner of any transgressions, illegal fly tipping etc. I have had to on non geocaching occasions report a dead body, dumping of industrial liquid waste into a water course, and extracting a sheep trapped by barbed wire.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm now beginning to wonder if I should bother at all.

It entirely depends where you're planning to place the box: perhaps there will be very little fuss involved, or it may be a bureaucratic nightmare. If it's to be sited where permission will obviously be required but may be tricky, and you don't want to bother, come up with another site that will be less trouble.

 

You'll still have to be sure that the box will be totally invisible from even a few feet away (even after some hasty re-hiding), discreetly away from muggle view, and yet the geocacher will be able to find it without ransacking the area. Regard this as part of the fun though!

 

HH (why are there so many HH's?)

[+spioradsaor]

I suppose if its too hard or cumbersome to find the owner then either dont bother placing the cache..or make an informed judgement if it will be a problem.

 

However Please note I am not criticising /getting at/or otherwise in the humph..with our intrepid approvers...

 

A very well done you two. And I mean that.

[+Eckington]

A very well done you two. And I mean that.

Cheers, Kidder!

[Alan White]

Methinks we're about to see UK cache numbers drop by about 50%!

A lot, lot, more than that, I think. I expect that, as the existing 6000+ caches die natural deaths, we'll end up with no more than a few dozen. I hope those who have brought this about are comfortable with their actions.

 

Still, at least we'll get a chance to catch up, and PQs will no longer be a problem.

 

Of course, I may just give it up altogether. I certainly don't want to be part of some government-organised and approved hobby.

 

Geocaching in the UK - RIP.

[+The Northumbrian]

How about asking Jeremy if a new box on the form can be implemented, such as something along the lines of 'permission details' or 'name, address and telephone number of person granting permission'.

 

That way this will get implemented worldwide and not just the UK.

 

Just a thought??

I agree with this proposal. of permissio first before leaving a cache.but I dont think that people's names Addresses and telephone numbers should be given in public. I think the data protection act deos not allow this , unless you make it clear to that person that thier details will be made public, and I dont think a lot of people would agree to that.

[+wildlifewriter]

Methinks we're about to see UK cache numbers drop by about 50%!

A lot, lot, more than that, I think. I expect that, as the existing 6000+ caches die natural deaths, we'll end up with no more than a few dozen. I hope those who have brought this about are comfortable with their actions.

Did you bother to read the original post?

 

If so, which part of it did you not understand?

 

-Wlw.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Alan White:

we'll end up with no more than a few dozen (caches)

 

...a slight over-reaction, I think .

 

As I pointed out above: all this consists of is a streamlining of cache review procedure, whereby the cache submitter realises that their placement is in a country park / SSSI etc - which will obviously need permission - and provides permission details in advance to the reviewer (rather than waiting until asked for them).

 

I'd much rather that we could place caches anywhere at will, and certainly agree that the hobby will be worse off with Government recognition and more than the minimum of official approval. But we have to accept that a certain number of caches accidentally come to the attention of officials or landowners from time to time, and there needs to be a way of saving such caches from extinction - advance permission is the only way (perhaps except for hiding the cache so well that the landowner can't tell whether it's there or not - I can think of a couple that fall into this category!).

 

Actually, even the latter wouldn't help, as it appears to be the visits of geocache-hunters that cause the trouble, rather than the caches themselves. In sensitive areas, trig pointing should require permission just as much as geocaching, in fact...

 

HH (edited slightly for clarity)

Edited May 6, 2005 by Happy Humphrey

[+Manncubs]

Alan White:

we'll end up with no more than a few dozen (caches)

 

...a slight over-reaction, I think .

 

... But we have to accept that a certain number of caches accidentally come to the attention of officials or landowners from time to time, and there needs to be a way of saving such caches from extinction ...

 

How many is a 'certain number' so far?

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

How about asking Jeremy if a new box on the form can be implemented, such as something along the lines of 'permission details' or 'name, address and telephone number of person granting permission'.

 

That way this will get implemented worldwide and not just the UK.

 

Just a thought??

I agree with this proposal. of permissio first before leaving a cache.but I dont think that people's names Addresses and telephone numbers should be given in public. I think the data protection act deos not allow this , unless you make it clear to that person that thier details will be made public, and I dont think a lot of people would agree to that.

When you place a reviewers note on submitting a cache page, only the reviewers see it, and unless they decide to post it to the page, other cachers never have any idea that one was posted. Giving the landowners contact details on submission could work if the same thing was done with them.

 

A lot, lot, more than that, I think. I expect that, as the existing 6000+ caches die natural deaths, we'll end up with no more than a few dozen. I hope those who have brought this about are comfortable with their actions.

 

I feel very comfortable with my actions! At least I know that I'm working towards protecting those 6000+ caches from being archived at the landowners request due to them being fed up of caches being placed on their land without permission.

 

Of course, I may just give it up altogether. I certainly don't want to be part of some government-organised and approved hobby.

 

Geocaching is no longer the underground past time that it started out as, and is slowly coming out into the open. I'm sorry that you don't seem to have realised that, and would be even sorrier if you decided to quit as it would be a loss to both geocaching and yourself.

 

Geocaching in the UK - RIP

 

More correctly Long live geocaching in the UK!

 

Dave

[60North]

To be honest I am at a loss as to what to do with the caches here that are mine, and those that I have adopted.

 

The late Mark (The Cat)'s caches up here are now my responsibility, but I have no idea whether permission was sought from anyone to plant them. I was already concerned about the location of a couple of them, within the walls or ruins of of dry stone walls. I wouldn't want any cacher at the scene being accused of damage which they had not caused.

 

As far as mine are concerned, they are so tucked away that even those looking for them can't find them! I have no idea who owns the land. Nor have I the time to try to find out. No-one can complain if I archive my own caches, but how do people feel about me archiving the caches of the late Mark (The Cat)? If no-one objects what should I do with the contents?

 

Thanks

[+Pharisee]

The late Mark (The Cat)'s caches up here are now my responsibility, but I have no idea whether permission was sought from anyone to plant them. I was already concerned about the location of a couple of them, within the walls or ruins of of dry stone walls. I wouldn't want any cacher at the scene being accused of damage which they had not caused.

 

When you adopted them, they became yours. Do with them as you see fit.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Andy,

I don't see that you have to do anything with your caches if you've had no complaints: the new procedure is to be followed when submitting caches that are on land of a certain classification. It's not that much different from the old procedure either: it's just tightening up on new cache placing.

 

As your caches are not over-popular (due to remoteness rather than lack of quality, of course!), occasional visiting geocachers are unlikely to attract too much attention. But if you think that a couple of them are in unsuitable locations, you could archive those, or (preferably) move them to somewhere better nearby (if there is anywhere). That's what I'd do.

 

I hope I'm not treading on the reviewers' toes by suggesting this, but I'd venture that they would agree with the principle.

 

HH

[Lactodorum]

Andy,

I don't see that you have to do anything with your caches if you've had no complaints: the new procedure is to be followed when submitting caches that are on land of a certain classification. It's not that much different from the old procedure either: it's just tightening up on new cache placing.

 

As your caches are not over-popular (due to remoteness rather than lack of quality, of course!), occasional visiting geocachers are unlikely to attract too much attention. But if you think that a couple of them are in unsuitable locations, you could archive those, or (preferably) move them to somewhere better nearby (if there is anywhere). That's what I'd do.

 

I hope I'm not treading on the reviewers' toes by suggesting this, but I'd venture that they would agree with the principle.

 

HH

What HH said. Unless you know of a particular problem with an existing cache we have no intention of re-reviewing all 6000+of them

[+The Intrepid Scotts]

I do not understand what Happy Humphrey means in his recent post when he refers to, "when submitting caches that are on land of a certain classification." Why does the new proceedure not apply to all new caches?

 

Graeme

[+Simply Paul]

As I understand it, the new procedure is intended to speed up the listing process for the reviewers. At the moment they have lots of caches waiting to be approved, without the info to approve them. In the future such caches will be archived (to get them off the list) and 'de-archived' and published as soon as that info is given.

 

That info is needed when the cache is somewhere that obviously needs 'special' approval, such as the middle of a private golf course (thinking of a few I've done) or at the top of a church tower (thinking of one I'd like to set).

 

I hope I've got that right

 

SP

[Lactodorum]

As I understand it, the new procedure is intended to speed up the listing process for the reviewers. At the moment they have lots of caches waiting to be approved, without the info to approve them. In the future such caches will be archived (to get them off the list) and 'de-archived' and published as soon as that info is given.

 

That info is needed when the cache is somewhere that obviously needs 'special' approval, such as the middle of a private golf course (thinking of a few I've done) or at the top of a church tower (thinking of one I'd like to set).

 

I hope I've got that right

 

SP

Yes

[+The Spokes]

So if permission is not granted for a real cache there should be no problem in placing a virtual. Would that be correct?