Some Dry Stone Wall Caches Are Okay.

May 12, 2005

I went out to take a few photos today...

A nice Long Barrow Neolithic site. Note the pretty dry stone wall that borders its circumference. (sorry about my stupid dog running laps)

Here is a closer look at the dry stone wall, guess what the arrow is pointing at.

Oh dear. Looks like some freshly fallen dry stone wall damage. Funny, nowhere else along this wall are there such fallen stones, I wonder why here. I guess it is the information signs fault.

There she is, a geocache.com approved geocache. Under a couple of stones that used to form part of the dry stone wall.

A while after I logged this cache it dawned on me that its location maybe a bit nauhty. So I contacted the UK moderators. The cache was briefly archived.

But its re-opening a few hours later confirms that the cache location is prefectly fine.

So those thinking of using a dry stone wall (especially ones like these in delicate neolithic sites) go ahead and place it, you got a good chance it will be approved.

Edited May 12, 2005 by stonefisk

1k · May 12, 2005

I've asked Stonefisk to send me the details of the cache and Lactodorum and I will have a look at the mails we have had about it and consider what we may need to do next.

Eckington

May 12, 2005

So those thinking of using a dry stone wall (especially ones like these in delicate neolithic sites) go ahead and place it, you got a good chance it will be approved.

Actually, Ive got a better idea.

DONT PLACE IT!

Am I alone in thinking this is a little irresponsible, OK so this cache is on top and no damage is evident, however, how much damage could be caused during searching, and what impression is it going to give to the uninitiated when they see someone 'reworking' the stones on the top of the walls!

Drystone walls should remain inviolate, in fact caches inside any wall are generally a poor idea!

1k · May 12, 2005

So those thinking of using a dry stone wall (especially ones like these in delicate neolithic sites) go ahead and place it, you got a good chance it will be approved.

Actually, Ive got a better idea.

DONT PLACE IT!

....that is quite correct, let us look into the circumstances first, and then act as required if necessary.

Eckington

1.7k · May 12, 2005

Thank you for bringing this to everybody's attention with the aid of your photographs and your sarcastic comments. That helps us greatly.

As you hint, I was involved in archiving this cache and contacting the owner. I will do so again as a result of your photo's.

May I suggest to anyone who has a grievance with a particular cache that an e-mail sent to the reviewers will ALWAYS be acted upon, especially if it contains relevant information such a photo's. This sort of approach, while possibly satisfying, is not the ideal way of pursuing such matters.

Oh yes, drystone walls are NOT allowed as locations for caches.

3.3k · May 12, 2005

It might be worth stating on cache pages where caches are placed near to a dry-stone wall (but not in it) that the cache is NOT in the wall to save people dismantling it in their fruitless search.

1.7k · May 12, 2005

It might be worth stating on cache pages where caches are placed near to a dry-stone wall (but not in it) that the cache is NOT in the wall to save people dismantling it in their fruitless search.

Such as this quote from the cache page in question......

This is a micro cache, and it's not obvious what you are looking at! But its not "IN" any stone walls.

:laughing:

2.2k · May 12, 2005

Having read the cache description it does appear that this is a micro. It also appears clear that it is not in the wall.

Unless I have the wrong cache description.

Perhaps there is a cache at the same site on one of the alternative listing sites?

May 12, 2005

*cough* English Heritage Site *cough*

2.2k · May 12, 2005

*cough* English Heritage Site *cough*

English heritage site fine but i thought your comments where about it being in a dry stone wall. It isn't.

2.2k · May 12, 2005

It would also appear that you where quite happy to go and look for the cache and instead of giving the reviewers chance to sort this out properly chose to post on here instead.

Give them a break, they get enough ear bashing without this :laughing:

May 12, 2005

Well if we are all having a dig at wall caches I went to this one Ted Spencer Memorial Kettle

and found it where the hint said it was and that was a dry stone wall plus the said cache was coverd in a bin bag (two taboos in one) and has this been archived/reported yet???

erm.. no I dont think so.

But when Yorkiepudding placed her first ever cache she gets it archived when 'grassed' (I hate the term) but this is blatently one cacher chucking theire teddy out when others seem to be not too bothered.

So can someone tell me if the law got laid down before the above cache was placed or it it that the finders are not particularly bothered about where this cache was placed and never informed our wonderfull moderators (you two do a wonderfull job by the way).

I for one had absolutely no idea this rule was in place until I noticed a few caches being re-hid in my area.

1.7k · May 12, 2005

Well if we are all having a dig at wall caches I went to this one Ted Spencer Memorial Kettle
and found it where the hint said it was and that was a dry stone wall plus the said cache was coverd in a bin bag (two taboos in one) and has this been archived/reported yet???

erm.. no I dont think so.

But when Yorkiepudding placed her first ever cache she gets it archived when 'grassed' (I hate the term) but this is blatently one cacher chucking theire teddy out when others seem to be not too bothered.

So can someone tell me if the law got laid down before the above cache was placed or it it that the finders are not particularly bothered about where this cache was placed and never informed our wonderfull moderators (you two do a wonderfull job by the way).

I for one had absolutely no idea this rule was in place until I noticed a few caches being re-hid in my area.

Actually the hind DIDN'T say it was in a dry stone wall. It said it was at "the base of the wall". There is a big difference.

As for the bin bag, we don't refuse caches in bags but we DO e-mail the owners to suggest they remove them.

Can I suggest that an effective way of putting things right that you consider wrong is to contact the reiewers by e-mail with details and we will act upon your concerns. I can't say we will always do what you suggest but we WILL investigate.

May 12, 2005

What I was getting at was that there has been lots of visitors to this particular cache altho novel in the way it is not a tub, it is has never been frowned upon. It is actually snuggled right inside the base of the wall all you do is move a stone - Myself personaly had no idea this was part of the rules but it does seem that a lot out there let you know about the other caches in/on walls as soon as they get to them but this one may have possibly 'slipped the net' possibly due to the description as you say.

My grumble is why so many have done this and never once said "Hmm this is not right stuck in a wall- best get onto the Moderators right away!" they Have probably thought "ooh a rusty kettle -how novel" and put it back.

Nuf said.

May 12, 2005

It would also appear that you where quite happy to go and look for the cache and instead of giving the reviewers chance to sort this out properly chose to post on here instead.

Give them a break, they get enough ear bashing without this

oh you are quite wrong.

I logged the cache awhile ago.

I then emailed reviewers stating details of cache location.

The cache got archived.

The cache got un-archived.

Did I make a mistake?

Today, several days (1 week) since my first visit and contacting reviewers, I had the chance to return to the cache to see if things had changed, I do not see that they have.

Yes, I did quietly contact the moderators in the first instance, and no I was not so quiet second time around.... why should I be?

I do not see the problem of posting a further alert here, seems just as effective. I could have posted the same details on the cache page as a 'needs archiving' post. But I am really not sure if it does need archiving. There may be no problem with the cache location. The cache is a fake stone on top of a dry stone wall, loose stones arranged to conceal it. Without my post we would never know (I wouldn't know) if this is okay, all for the good of everyone...maybe not *shrug*.

(Lactodorum)
This sort of approach, while possibly satisfying, is not the ideal way of pursuing such matters.

I think more so called cache "grievance" posts should be made here on the public forum and the outcomes made public. That way we may learn something.

1.7k · May 12, 2005

I think more so called cache "grievance" posts should be made here on the public forum and the outcomes made public. That way we may learn something.

Well you are certainly going to learn what a "ModAnt" is. :laughing:

-

May 12, 2005

I think more so called cache "grievance" posts should be made here on the public forum and the outcomes made public. That way we may learn something.

I'm afraid that I don't agree. I doubt that 'name and shame' threads would do much good for the caching community, nor would they encourage people new to the hobby. There are a number of ways to encourage people to stick the the rules and the guidelines, but that isn't one of them.

1.7k · May 12, 2005

OK, write what you like if you feel it helps (as long at the forum rules are complied with)

Edited May 12, 2005 by Lactodorum

May 12, 2005

Well you are certainly going to learn what a "ModAnt" is.

-

I kind of see the "ModAnt" point of view in caches like these. This cache should be a virtual in my opinion as on par with other Barrows and Henges in this part of the country.

May 12, 2005

I think more so called cache "grievance" posts should be made here on the public forum and the outcomes made public. That way we may learn something.

I'm afraid that I don't agree. I doubt that 'name and shame' threads would do much good for the caching community, nor would they encourage people new to the hobby. There are a number of ways to encourage people to stick the the rules and the guidelines, but that isn't one of them.

That's it, keep it all underwraps hush hush. Same mistakes made again and again.

Anyway, you are probably right.

There are a number of ways to encourage people to stick the the rules and the guidelines, but that isn't one of them.

Okay, I am all for learning as is everyone else but alas you neglect to state exactly what the other number of ways to encourage people to stick to the rules are.

So fire away, I will take note.

May 12, 2005

This cache appears to be near a barrow judging by the pictures,I for one will personally remove ANY cache that is in, on or near any such structure...end of...i will place the offending cache in a suitable spot and email the owner the co-ords.

1.7k · May 13, 2005

This cache appears to be near a barrow judging by the pictures,I for one will personally remove ANY cache that is in, on or near any such structure...end of...i will place the offending cache in a suitable spot and email the owner the co-ords.

The guidelines are quite clear that SAM's are "out of bounds" if there is any risk of damage.

No cache may be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). Protect our heritage.

However to take it upon yourself to remove a cache that is placed NEAR such a site is setting a tricky precedent. As you are a fairly recent "recruit" I don't know if you are aware of the problems caused by a group a couple of years ago who decided to do just this. A lot of legitimate caches were trashed as a result.

While geocaching is to a large extent self-policing this has to be done carefully. You don't like caches NEAR ancient sites so you say you will remove them. You have also stated that you don't like caches where you have to visit cemeteries, will you remove those as well? What about old churches? Will you remove caches near those? What if another cacher doesn't like micro caches (and there are people who don't), can they remove any they find?. Or maybe someone who has deeply held views on War thinks used Ammuniton Boxes are inappropriate, can they do the same?

The point I'm trying to make is that as Geocachers we try to operate on a consensus basis, not on the basis of personal views. There are things I don't like about many of the caches I have to review but I do my damnedest not to let that influence me. If you have a grievance about a cache (like the one that started this thread) please bring it to our attention as reviewers.

Which brings me back to the original subject. I have been in contact with the cache owner (again) and he is quite concerned at the trouble caused, especially as the cache container is NOT in the original position. Someone, probably a cacher, has moved it. In its original position it was certainly within the guidelines and was placed quite legitimately. Now it has been moved it is not. These things happen and they have to be dealt with. This one IS being dealt with between the owner and me.

1.2k · May 13, 2005

The only caches I really disapprove of are caches I can't find - so I think I'll move them all to places that are a little bit easier.

May 13, 2005

After reading the logs for the cache referred to in the OP, there seems to be a certain amount of doubt and confusion about what was found - and where it was found.

Nothing more to be said, just now.

-Wlw.

[Edited for typos, as usual]

Edited May 13, 2005 by wildlifewriter

May 13, 2005

to avoid ANY confusion..barrows are not dumping grounds for ex Mod ammo cans or plastic boxes,any sensible human being will know this.at present Nt / Eh are considering sealing off 1 barrow in particular due to idiots lighting the dreaded t lites and leaving food etc...so what will their attitude be towards boxes with tat in ? a very dim view i wager. there was a problem a while back i recall with just this problem,luckily it was quickly resolved by the moderators and the cache placers.if boxes are placed within or near such places of national heritage then none of you will do yourselves any favours..we all know that caches lead to a certain amount of damage after a while where people have rooted around looking for that elusive box,we are ALL guilty of it,even those among you who think youre above us mere mortals.woods,undergrowth and such like can absorb some of this pressure but barrows and such structures cant due to there age and construction.lastly let me ask you this..Are you really prepared to cause damage to such a structure just to add a digit to your grand score ???

my nations heritage means more to me then a tupperware box or an ammo can.

May 13, 2005

ahhh it also seems im allowed to air my opinion eithier...this is exactly what im getting at..

From : <%%%%%%@******.****.com>

Sent : Friday, May 13, 2005 2:34 AM

To : <mk1spitfire@hotmail.com>

Subject : [GEO] -%%%%%%- contacting you from Geocaching.com

--This message was sent through the Geocaching.com web site--

Well you have certainly removed enough of your own caches, so why not start on

other peoples!

As I recall nobody appointed you an arbiter in these matters, and neitehr will

they!

this is an EXACT copy of the email...ive added the ****'s.

ohhh dear ive touched on someones sensitivities,that is a shame is it not.

Edit: %%%%% added by Lactodorum to prevent inadvertant personal attacks. Otherwise the note's fine.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Lactodorum

1.7k · May 13, 2005

<unpunctuated valuable post clipped>

Any chance you could use some puctuation here and there?

I'm sure you are making some valuable points in your post, but it sure is as hard as hell to read and follow.

-

Edited May 13, 2005 by SlytherinAlex

2.5k · May 13, 2005

Ah yes, the old "if you cannot spell and your grammar is not up to scratch then we will discount your opinion" argument.

I don't neccessarily agree with all that has been said above, but could we possibly calm this down now chaps and keep it off a personal slanging level.

2.2k · May 13, 2005

While I agree that a Barrow or similair place is not the best place for a cache. The finder who complained who says I am "wrong" obviously looked and found the cache. Pretty obvious from the pics what the site is. Dont think even Blunders Pugh would struggle to recognise this. Still looked and found it! The choice was yours if you were not happy you could/should have just walked away and raised your concerns.

Third Degree Witch, not happy with removing your own caches and want to remove those belonging to others? Nice move!

Please feel free to come and remove some of mine!

1.7k · May 13, 2005

Ah yes, the old "if you cannot spell and your grammar is not up to scratch then we will discount your opinion" argument.

I don't neccessarily agree with all that has been said above, but could we possibly calm this down now chaps and keep it off a personal slanging level.

yes i take your point we should not make judgments on other peoples lack of grammar skills or punctuation third degree witch knows where the full stop key is and uses loads of them but splitting posts up into sentences and paragraphs is not too much to ask it anyone who can work out how to work a gpsr and find a cache hidden in a field should not find the enter key that hard to master and the point i was trying to make was that if tdw has a valid point to make it would be much better to make in a manner that was more accessible to all but then again its just probably another example of the **** it who cares about standards anymore it doesnt really matter if you can write or add up or walk upright without your knuckles dragging on the floor live and let live thats what i say so the best thing it to just get on with it and stop whining after all just like everything else its someone elses fault anyway because of course no one is perfect certainly not me my speeling is shocking and always has been but now and then i will resort to using the internet to check the odd word or two before i post anything.

Slight edit by Lactodorum to remove a "problem" word

Edited May 13, 2005 by Lactodorum

May 13, 2005

I'm sure you are making some valuable points in your post, but it sure is as hard as hell to read and follow.

I think Slytherinalex was trying to make the point that it would be easier to read a message if it was presented in a form that wasn't so "cramped", not that he was discounting what was said.

In case anyone is unsure, a very simple rule that can be followed to make things easier to read is "after a full stop (.) leave one space and start the next word with a Capital letter". Forget more complicated rules about commas, semicolons etc. if you will but try and use this one :lol:

This is meant to be helpful to all, and is NOT meant to be "getting at anyone".

I'll get back in my box now :lol:

1.7k · May 13, 2005

I think Slytherinalex was trying to make the point that it would be easier to read a message if it was presented in a form that wasn't so "cramped", not that he was discounting what was said.

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make.

Thank you.

-

2.5k · May 13, 2005

I am not so stupid that I cannot appreciate what Slytherinalex is saying, and I appreciate a well pot together posting (or log, or cache page), but it just seems to me that in the context of this discussion it is being used as a rod with which to beat somebody else and to denigrate their argument. Feel free to slag off TDW for the content of what he says, dissect and explode his comments if you like, my request to keep the discussion from becoming a personal slanging match still stands.

2.2k · May 13, 2005

And back on subject, no I dont think in the wall of an ancient monument is the right place for a cache!

1.7k · May 13, 2005

And back on subject, no I dont think in the wall of an ancient monument is the right place for a cache!

You're quite right, it isn't. Never has been, never will be.

May 13, 2005

I'm sure you are making some valuable points in your post, but it sure is as hard as hell to read and follow.

I think Slytherinalex was trying to make the point that it would be easier to read a message if it was presented in a form that wasn't so "cramped", not that he was discounting what was said.

I discounted what was said - because I just scroll past any post by TDW, these days.

If he can't be bothered to write properly, why should I go to the trouble of reading it?

-Wlw.

2.5k · May 13, 2005

Absolutely, I agree 100%

Even if the cache setter is very very careful and 99% of cachers who visit are as careful, it just puts undue pressure on such a spot. Anyhow, in the case above, there is an information board, so surely numbers could be derived from that and make the cache an offset. That way cachers still get to visit the monument, which is after all, one of the enjoyable aspects of geocaching; being taken to places you would not otherwise visit.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Alibags

May 13, 2005

Then finally. We agree. . Peace once more decends on the forum .

Ps. Hows my typing ? . Better i hope ?

2.9k · May 13, 2005

Absolutely, I agree 100%

Even if the cache setter is very very careful and 99% of cachers who visit are as careful, it just puts undue pressue on such a spot. Anyhow, in the case above, there is an information board, so surely numbers could be derived from that and make the cache an offset. That way cachers still get to visit the monument, which is after all, one of the enjoyable aspects of geocaching; being taken to places you would not otherwise visit.

Or stick a magnet or velcro to the container and put it on the back of the notice board and tell people on the cache page.

Edited May 13, 2005 by markandlynn

2.5k · May 13, 2005

It show be "how's my typing" as it is an abbreviation of 'how is'. You are obviously an ignorant person and I will not be agreeing with you in future. Nyeh!

May 13, 2005

I discounted what was said - because I just scroll past any post by TDW, these days.

Funnily enough Wlw . Thats Exactly what i do with your posts.Small world eh ?

1.7k · May 13, 2005

Then finally. We agree. . Peace once more decends on the forum .

Ps. Hows my typing ? . Better i hope ?

Great, thanks. :lol:

I was only trying to point out that some of your points might be missed by some people because the post was so hard to read.

-

1.1k · May 13, 2005

It show be "how's my typing" as it is an abbreviation of 'how is'. You are obviously an ignorant person and I will not be agreeing with you in future. Nyeh!

Isn't it a contraction rather than an abbreviation? :lol:

1.7k · May 13, 2005

It show be "how's my typing" as it is an abbreviation of 'how is'. You are obviously an ignorant person and I will not be agreeing with you in future. Nyeh!

Isn't it a contraction rather than an abbreviation? :lol:

Oh look, this isn't an abbreviation.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. It's just contraction.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself

Crawls back under his rock (not in a dry stone wall :lol: ).

May 13, 2005

It show be "how's my typing" as it is an abbreviation of 'how is'. You are obviously an ignorant person and I will not be agreeing with you in future. Nyeh!

Isn't it a contraction rather than an abbreviation?

RU NickPicking

1.1k · May 13, 2005

RU NickPicking

I was, and I'm terribly sorry for it. I promised myself that I wouldn't post anything for a while unless I had a genuine contribution to make, and especially not about spelling / punctuation, so I'll try and recompense this thread by attempting to steer it back onto the original topic:

I think placing a cache to encourage people to visit the barrow in the picture is a good idea, but since it's so close to an ancient monument / dry stone wall, perhaps an offset cache would be best, using data from the information board to find the cache co-ords.

I noticed from the previous cache logs and posts that there seems to be 2 containers at the location, the micro cache, and another bigger one into which people have put golf balls, dominos, and found £20! I'm now interested in what the other container is. Is it a 'druid's lunchbox'? why was there £20 in it? Who else is hiding caches if not geocachers?

May 13, 2005

Who else is hiding caches if not geocachers?

Terracachers, Navicachers, Squirrels, Drug Dealers, Gun Runners etc :lol:

2.9k · May 13, 2005

Who else is hiding caches if not geocachers?

Terracachers, Navicachers, Squirrels, Drug Dealers, Gun Runners etc

Letterboxers

May 13, 2005

But when Yorkiepudding placed her first ever cache she gets it archived when 'grassed' (I hate the term) but this is blatently one cacher chucking theire teddy out when others seem to be not too bothered.

Of the three people who found the cache in its original location, two logged a concern about its location. As the one who "grassed" on Yorkiepudding to the moderators, I should perhaps explain my reasons...

The cache in question was hidden inside a dry stone wall, near its base, behind a couple of loose stones. It was a small plastic lunch box, wrapped in a plastic bag. The wall is currently in use by the farmer, Mr Cooper of Highfield, for a flock of pregnant ewes and lambs. The farmer's reputation suggested to me that it was highly unlikely that the cache had been placed with his permission.

The land from which the cache was accessed is owned by the National Trust, and is in the Peak District National Park. It is designated an SSSI, a Special Area of Conservation, a Special Protection Area and an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Of all the nearby caches, including those in dry stone walls, this cache seemed especially dangerous to the future of the sport.

My initial approach was to raise my concerns with Yorkiepudding. I suggested an alternative location about 20m away which, though still in the SSSI etc, was not on NT property and would not run the risk of angering Mr Cooper. Yorkiepudding replied saying that the hole in the wall was there already and the wall looked very secure, but that she'd keep an eye on it. Nevertheless I was still concerned, so I referred the matter to the moderators.

The cache has now been relocated and I hope that I have made my peace with Yorkypudding. I regret the inevitable upset that my "grassing" caused to a relative newcomer to geocaching, but I never once doubted that the cache was far too risky to remain in place.

May 13, 2005

The finder who complained who says I am "wrong" obviously looked and found the cache. Pretty obvious from the pics what the site is. Dont think even Blunders Pugh would struggle to recognise this. Still looked and found it! The choice was yours if you were not happy you could/should have just walked away and raised your concerns.

That 'finder' would be me...er stonefisk.

I made clear that it was later (after I logged the find) that I started to consider the cache MIGHT be a "bit naughty"'. This was after I read the thread about changes to the new cache guidelines. So I proceeded to make a statement of facts to Lactodorum. Please consider that word "statement", I did NOT complain to the moderators at all. (see below exactly what I stated in my private email)

So please stop elluding that I am some gross hypocrite for logging the cache. Your attempt to have a dig at me has little bearing in fact. Normally I would probably tell you to kindly stfu.

(stonefisk email to Lactodorum)

For the attention of UK moderators:

*nameofcachehere* - *waypointhere*

Cache is in a dry stone wall which borders the base of the ancient monument "*name of site here*".

The Barrow, wall and 'plaque' (which is an info sign and the cache is hidden in wall behind it) can be seen in at this URL ...

http://www.*url of a photo of barrow here*

regards

Some Dry Stone Wall Caches Are Okay.

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

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