Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, that’s the registered dartmoor, it’s been endangered for some time. Dru Butterfield at Parke has small herd.
There’s quite a lot of interesting history about the breed – it’s mildly popular in America for some reason – but like dogs, the breed standard isn’t that relevant to the originating conditions. Some think that registered dartmoors are overbred and now too fine to survive on the moor that formed them. (And having seen pictures of some of the show ponies, I tend to agree)
The dartmoor hill pony (not registered, loose classification) could also be called endangered if you consider it “A pony owned by commoners grazing on the moor” as there are only around 1200 of those. (And only 51 commoners with ponies on the moor)
These include the fashion ponies – cobs on the western moor, shetlands on the northern and southern, those with particular markings. The markets for these are varied, but all contracting. Eg, the speckled shetlands were mostly bred for the fur trade. The shetlands first landed on Dartmoor over a hundred years ago as a breeding colony for tin miners as pit ponies, and man has bred horses up there for various purposes since at least the bronze age. Nowadays the trade is tiny by comparison and the numbers of ponies on the moor shrinking fast – with the effect on the walking that we know about (encroachment of bracken, gorse etc – ponies are the only grazers on the moor with upper and lower teeth so the only ones that can deal with gorse in particular)
The rare breed issue does have another aspect – subsidies. The ponies attract very little at present (from various sources such as Europe but also English Heritage), but rare breed cattle get more – AND there’s a usable product to sell at the end. That’s one reason why you see so many Belted Galloways and Highland cattle on the moor.
I met with Robyn Petrie-Rice last week who’s doing a degree on the subject of dartmoor ponies and has done a huge amount of research and is a source of lots of interesting knowledge. She’s also one of many trying to forge a way forwards to preserve the future on ponies on the moor. (One that doesn’t include serving them for breakfast…)
Without the effort involved with replacing log sheets, caches would stay around a lot longer as CO’s lose interest, leading to heavier saturation and more difficulty in finding somewhere to put new ones. I think it’s a useful requirement and a good indicator of an unloved or poorly made/maintained/placed cache.
Without a certain level of ‘churn’, this hobby would get quite boring. It’s sad to see a very old cache be archived, especially when somebody has offered to adopt it but the CO won’t reply, and it causes disappointment to new finders to find a wet pulpy mess and horrid contents/swaps.
But I don’t feel sad when it’s a cache that the owner isn’t prepared to look after or even respond to problems.
Moving pure digital and you might as well just play Munzee instead; after all, what’s the difference?
redvanman1971 – I asked that question on the Devon facebook group and, eventually via PM, got an answer. I don’t want to reveal who, but it’s a well known cacher/letterboxer who uses that instead of their caching name.
Not sure that eases your curiosity or makes it worse…
As a note; a quick query of my GSAK database covering Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset only shows 13 wireless beacon caches in all of that area. Not really something to get that excited about, imo. 🙂
I’ve found two and currently have one out.
Pros: They are genuinely cool and do add another level. As you approach the GZ (or more accurately, first stage in a multi) then if your Garmin GPS has them enabled (and you don’t leave that feature turned on all the time or it uses battery) then the GPS will beep and show “Downloading coordinates” and within a few seconds, will update itself to the next stage or final. They self-power and run for a number of years, and you can hide them so they don’t need to be accessed again (within a rock crevice or inside a moot or wall). Nothing to show and no chance of being muggled.
Cons:
Not everyone has the ability to use them. You still need a physical final. Not everyone can figure out how to turn on this feature even if their gps is so blessed (I had to give instructions on the cache page)Arguements: Sorry, don’t agree that there’s no place for them. It’s a cute idea, cute enough for the notoriously Garmin-phobic Groundspeak to adopt them (although you’re not allowed to mention Garmin on the page (sigh) ).
There are a number of caches that aren’t usable by certain people. Yours, Daves and anyone who places a remote cache excludes those unfit or physically unable to reach it. A cache up a tree excludes climbers. All gps’s exclude those without a GPS/smartphone/computer (or ability to read a map). Agoraphobics might not be able to go to an event cache. That’s doesn’t mean they should be banned.
As a CO:
When I placed mine, I took some good advice from, I think, Forgetful Elephants, and ALSO put coordinates of the final stuck underneath the footpath sign.I get the odd positive feedback from somebody who’s sought out my very rare chirp cache and sometimes they’ve travelled a fair way specifically to do it. I also get comments saying “Thanks for the printed coords or I wouldn’t have been able to do it, I don’t have that feature”. I also get NM logs from people who insist it isn’t working, and when I get there to check, it is.
Will I place another? No. My curiosity about the technology is satisfied, they cost about a tenner each, and it doesn’t attract significantly more finders or even fave points than a random film pot in the hedge – something I find for most series type caches, they don’t get the finds. Those faves I get are more usually for the final container than the method of getting there. GC3P8FB
“Maybe we should ask dartymoor, as all his series have had the numbers before the names? ”
For the reason Dartmoor Strider gives – numbers up front are much easier to read on a GPS when you’re looking for the next one.
My first series was post-numbered, but I quickly changed that after reading some comments and realising that my own Oregon 450 had the same issues.
Not a problem if you have a short series. I hope to be doing a series tomorrow that has titles such as “LCT 123” “LCT 124” – can read that on most devices easily enough.
I was on the opencaching.com site last week, archiving some caches after Amberel had passed through (not much point maintaining them with 2 visitors in 18 months) – and one thing that I did notice on their cache pages is a setting for “Is part of a series” and the ability to name a series to add them to.
That looks a great bit of functionality for identifying a series.
Shame groundspeak would rather spend their dev time doing bonkers things that nobody wants. But they may follow suit because Garmin have done it now, and they don’t like being one-upped by them.
1. Oregon 450 and a 650. Marks are 450|650
2. 8|6 – The 650 is easily the best machine, but it crashes far too frequently.
3. I use the free OSM maps from Talkie Toaster. 8/10. I also have the 50k OS maps, but apart from when you need to know where a footpath is, they’re not as good as the clarity is poor. Geocaches blend into the background.
4. Never used it abroad.
5. Windows.
“Follow the arrow” has a lot of comparisons – the best guide is to play with different models if you can and get a feel, but all the Oregons are pretty good and support geocaching very well.
The only way I know is to use GSAK – filter out the caches by searching for the common part of the name, and expert them to google earth or map page.
The website is very basic on how you can search and then display – even the PQ with “Map this PQ” won’t allow searches.
Another thought is http://www.geocachetrails.com/ – if the series has been listed there.
*cough* Drama Llama *cough*
I’ve read everything on here, the Facebook thread, the logs that came through this morning as each cache was deleted, I have seen PR’s amended profile where he asks people to delete his found logs as he’s given up caching and… “Huh?”
I don’t get it. On the face of this it seems like a spiteful over-reaction and withdrawal of “my toys” that removes a series that people were enjoying completing and clearly took a lot of the CO’s effort to lay and maintain. It does not make sense to me, but clearly PR takes this so perceived insult so seriously he wants out and has decided to do it in what he probably thinks is grand style.
Myself – I’m saddened by the loss of caches I had yet to find, and feel particularly sorry for those part-way through the series who are now left high and dry. Good on you, Muddypuddles, for offering to adopt.
For what it’s worth, there have been some exchanges on this site in the past that I think were unwarranted, and sometimes the tone has been decidedly nasty at times. But I can’t see anything in this thread that Dave has written which deserves such a reaction, and am completely baffled as to where postage costs became relevant!
Oh well, life goes on. There’s others who lay caches and others who find them.
Thanks Vodka. Only the second bone I’ve ever broken. Still managing to cover a few miles though – take more than a bust toe to stop me!
Never paffed either, I’m not that determined for a smiley most times. I’ve been rung a few times and don’t mind sharing, though.
But yeah, at no time is a paf required, otherwise who would be FTF?
For my oregon 450 (pressure, rather than capacitive), I just bought a few cheap ones for a random phone and cut them to size with scissors. Doesn’t affect operation, and has prevented light scratching, although nothing protects against sliding over granite.
I have a 650 too with capacitive screen (pinch, etc) but haven’t bothered as it doesn’t stay running long enough to get damaged, preferring to lock up randomly instead. So it mostly stays in my bag as a spare.
It’s very interesting that many walkers expect to get wet feet when walking on Dartmoor. I’ve read it time and time again in the logs and so many of our guests here come back with sodden footwear and wet feet and dartymoor admits to the same 😥 !
Now now, that’s not what I said!
I don’t expect wet feet, but I accept them as a hazard of the job. And really, when you’re not going to be wet all day, every day, it doesn’t matter. Yes, it’s nicer to be dry, but wet feet can still be warm and comfortable, and it’s actually one of life’s little luxuries to peel off wet socks and feel them dry out. Don’t deny me that, Dave.
I’ve spent a fortune on boots over my life, working and walking – probably in excess of 60 pairs – and these are the lessons I’ve learned, and it’s rather glum reading:
Cheap boots can be very comfortable in the shop. But they don’t last.
Expensive boots can be so uncomfortable you won’t find out whether they last or not.
If you’re heavy, all boots will fail sooner. The seams unstitch or the sole splits. To be fair, I wouldn’t want me walking on me either.
Leather boots will leak sooner or later.
Synthetic boots will leak sooner or later.
Very good quality boots delay the inevitable as does proper maintenance and proofing/waxing, but not always in an even scale to what you paid.
I take Dave’s point about good maintenance and proofing, but once stitch goes or any element of the system fails (which may be in days or weeks from new), no amount of proofing will help. I don’t think non-heavy people appreciate the hammering a big bloke’s boots suffer from. (And before anyone scoffs, think how fit I must be to carry this much weight, and a pack for miles! Fitter than you skinny buggers!)
Wellies: I own two pairs of green dunlops cost around £15 a pair. They do a fine job of keeping water out, but no welly I’ve found fits well enough to prevent rubbing. (It took me a long time to figure out why my leg hairs stopped in an even line just below my knees – I thought I had some sort of disease!). I can walk up to about four miles in wellies, then rubbing sets in and things go downhill rapidly. I would much prefer a walking boot, even if my feet were wet in it. If it fits, wet or dry I don’t get rubs or chafes. That was why I was interested in the neoprene style, I’m thinking they’re probably more comfortable and I’m willing to try them out; but as with normal ones, they can’t breathe so any amount of sweat will make you just as wet as leaky boots.
Trainers: My friend walks considerable distances in normal trainers, including moor walking in winter. I prefer more support, but will occasionally go walking in them in the summer. After heavy boots it’s like having helium-feet.
Today I walked just over six miles doing the Royal Hill circuit. I know from his logs that Dave also found this A) Harder going than expected, and B) Extremely wet. He wasn’tkidding. My socks were soaked within the first half mile but it didn’t matter. They were warm and comfortable, just a bit squelchy and eft a considerable puddle in the chip shop at Princetown whilst waiting to be served on the way home.
Note that I’m especially considerate of my feet right now as I broke my big toe just over two weeks ago, which means I needed painkillers today, but not because of dampness – more jumping across a stream and landing badly. I should not be doing rough walking at all, but my mental health benefits from being out and that’s just as important.
Alas, today was the last day of my beloved and faithful Salomons. There are now several holes evident in the uppers, and the sole has worn down so much that I was slipping when descending wet grass almost constantly. I shall give them a full-honours Nordic funeral. (Each one will light a fire in my woodburner once they’ve dried out)
Now – another can of worms. Compounds! Do you want boots that will give good grip on granite? If so, don’t expect them to do distance. I’ve had a pair of super-grippy Berghaus go completely smooth within about 60 miles. The best boots I had for grip were forestry boots with one inch deep tractor-chevron pattern. They gave superb self-cleaning grip in all levels of mud, but were soft enough to stick to granite too. The Salomons came close to matching this.
Interested in reading Dave’s reply. As a heavier chap (18 stone) I’m really hard on most footwear and found that the cheaper end of the walking boot market can fall apart within the first hundred miles.
Of the past dozen or so pairs I’ve bought, I’ve only been truly happy with one – a pair of second-hand synthetic Salomon’s I got off ebay for £30 as a punt. They’ve lasted all of 2013 and so far into 2014, and covered around four hundred miles and still have grip, although they haven’t been waterproof for a long time. They also have great cushioning, something that I value a lot. Best boots I’ve ever had by some margin, and I’m not looking forwards to the day they do finally peg it.
I’ve tried a couple of other pairs of Salomon’s and they vary in comfort – the last pair I got (also ebay – a risky business buying untried!) were apparently a narrow fit, which damn near crippled me after even half a mile. I had to take them off and walk back across the moor in my socks!
I noticed Dave’s mention of Muck boots in his logs on my latest series and it made me look them up. Interesting, but it’s something I would definitely have to try out in a shop.
The winter we’ve had though – shocking – and I can’t remember the last time I came back from a decent walk with completely dry socks. When I worked in the woods, wearing boots through another wet winter, I actually developed the early stages of trenchfoot because the boots never dried out!
Tamerton – yes, that was quite odd. I didn’t spot that variable buried deep in each cache description – the bonus had no such clues and I assumed cache 1=A, Cache 2=B etc. That gave a final quite a way outside of the woods and I didn’t attempt it. It wasn’t until I was home and logging that I did see that strange thing in the logs.
Also, cache one has a number written on the lid that can be read right way up or upside down giving two possible numbers!
It was a bit bonkers, too be honest, and I was a bit miffed when logging. Sorry to hear they may have stopped caching due to illness though. 🙁
Surely the answer is to ask him?
I council against being too negative here. This is a massive resource that must benefit hundreds and has been shown to be in the balance recently. Tim should be given all the support we can or risk losing it, rather than critical comments.
finderman: If you’re searching for something within an established site and the site’s own search facilities don’t cut it; use google and “site:www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk words to search for” and google will do it for you.
I agree, and try to waymark parking spots when setting caches.
The reasons are as elditton says, and self evident. I did a small series south of the moor yesterday and there were no coords, and the logs were full of “I didn’t know where to park” and “Found better parking halfway round” – and I’m certain this uncertainty is one why that series has had so few visitors – I almost passed it by myself.
Also a shame; that series has been abandoned and the owners left the scene. Plenty of wet caches after this winter, but somehow it’s worse when you report it knowing it’ll never get sorted. 🙁
How many caches should a single person be allowed to own, is it 50 or 200 or 1779. I doubt if the reviewers or geocaching.com are that bothered, they are after all only interested in numbers.Sorry, but that’s a bit of a silly arguement IMO – the only judgement is the ability to maintain them in a timely fashion. There’s no suggestion poshrule performs maint any less rigorously than any other CO despite having so many, and there are lots of cache owners whose caches are forcibly archived because they fail to do any maint even when they only have one or a few caches.
In my view, there should be fewer rules in geocaching, not more.
I contacted Tim through facebook a few days ago when I heard and offered my help. I think he was somewhat overwhelmed by others doing the same which prompted the change of heart and indeed, he is now thinking of re-doing the entire site using a new web authoring program.
I can’t see much wrong with it myself as it stands – people come for the content, not the design!
I’m posting in this thread, not to drag up an arguement or attack anyone in particular, but to give an alternative view.
Last week I did two medium length series by Poshrule in Dorset; Babcary Bounce and Charlton Crusade (totalling 11 miles of flat, well-kept farmland and roads). Never done this CO’s caches before, so I read the descriptions more carefully and he mentions;
“i visit the area regularly but should you find a damp/wet log or even a container missing i am more than happy for it to be replaced should you carry spares prior to my next visit.”
So I took three spare caches along and had three DNFs in the first six of the series and used them all. Clues were specific and difficulty rated low, and subsequent finders have confirmed they’ve only found mine. I DNF’d one half way around, but had no spare or idea where it could be – and luckily, for another person the same day did find it (highlighting the risk of being arrogant when deciding to throwdown!). The last one in the series of 35 wasn’t there though, but I did have another spare in the car nearby so replaced that too.
Four throwdowns in one series, and thanked by the CO later for doing so.
I do understand this is different to some of the examples mentioned on here, but I thought of this thread whilst doing it, and you know? I’m glad I did as, yes, I got smileys, but so did those following me the same day and as this CO has the most caches of anyone in the country (1,779 of them!) I don’t mind giving them a bit of help. Cost to me is a couple of quid, but I was there anyway and with specific clues and a low D – combined with a public series, I was reasonably sure they had been muggled away. Without that line on the description, I wouldn’t have replaced any caches.
So anyway, I’m rambling. No surprise there. And this is VERY different to a High-D, no-Clued example like Smallacombe Bottom and I would probably be just as miffed as him in that case – but I’m presenting a case where throwdowns /can/ be acceptable – in my opinion.
That’s a bit daft, given how cheap new film pots are on ebay. I bought a hundred a while ago – pretty sure that’ll last a fair while!
<Mutter> Power trails are for cars! </mutter> (Cornwall and Dorset so far – and having done part of the Bodmin one… I didn’t actually enjoy doing it from the car – too much stress about parking, blocking the road, getting in and out constantly. By bike might have been better.)
Not many trails I’ve done have been micros only, in fairness. The main setter in devon in kevham1 with some huge number of caches out, and he often uses interesting and unusual containers to break things up.
But an interesting reply and thanks for your views. Glad you were willing to give it a go – and committed in a big way with a long series, and pleased you’ve had a positive response.
Look forwards to your next one!
Oh – and TOTALLY agree about cut and pasted logs. Laziness. I write unique logs for every cache I go to, and I do a lot of series – so why can’t other people?
Maybe some cachers don’t think the CO reads every log submitted. But I certainly do, and obviously, so does DD.
Spent an enjoyable half hour re-reading the posts in this thread and figure it’s time to re-visit this for two reasons:
1) Brentorboxer has published the second part of her series around Wheal Betsy, which I walked today. I don’t expect Hobo and Miss to try it given their comments before, but I certainly enjoyed it – and yes, gorse features! This is a more interesting area for me given the industrial archaelogy, and that my sister worked at the stables 25 years ago, and that I walked part of it two and a half years ago just before I discovered geocaching. It’s a nice area, and some of the geocaches have taught me a little more about its history than I knew before. I recommend it because I enjoyed it – but one thing this thread has shown is that there are different tastes! I’d be interested in others views too.
2) It’s now five months since Dartmoor Dave published “Dart’moor’s Double Dozen”, inspired by this very thread! Given his early posts on this subject, I would like to ask him if he has changed his views on caches “closer together” in a shortish series? (Although this was still too long for my wife who got very tired and grumpy by the time we reached the waterfall and meant we had to cut it short!). I think other cachers have enjoyed the series – sure there are a few harsh comments, but I know DD has thick skin – the majority certainly like it! It’s had well over a hundred visitors, lots of photos and favourite points.
Excellent! Well done, BB.
Given these are mostly roads and lanes, I agree – micros in hedges are going to be suboptimal. I might try one or two around Bovey, but following your example – interesting spots rather than flooding a road. Also as this is a bike route, my guess is most bikers won’t want to stop every 161 meters?
There’s quite a few people support this over on the facebook group too (Devon geocachers)
“the problem i have”
Proof we’re not all the same!
That’s the “reason I go there” for myself and others with series. In fact, I would have placed the caches closer together still than Dave did on that walk. 🙂
And I generally find plenty, or even too much, to say even on the bigger trails. X marks was great, and the hides inventive (and IMO different enough) to stand out when logging that evening.
Patience – well, it looks like the CO has archived half of the series, but removed all (or almost all) the caches. The remaining ones are racking up a lot of DNFs now. (Notified reviewer earlier this evening). Ill-fated series, which is a shame as nobody sets out to lay a bad trail, but it ended up disappointing a lot of people, and I rank it the worst series I’ve ever done – not for density, but for 13 out of 14 DNF’s when I tried.
Pleased it’s proved so popular. It’s an excellent walk and we’ve had a cracking summer but even so, blimey.
I saw your temp disablement of #2 and think it was probably the best thing to do, hope you can find somewhere nearby to hide it.
This is one of the reasons why I nearly always give clear hints, and has proven especially important for Ups and Downs through the SSSI of Bridford Woods – it was a promise I made to the NT Warden when getting permission. On a main circuit two months ago there was only one spot where there was obvious damage, and it wasn’t clear whether cachers or deer.
Agree about copy and paste, or tftcs. Boring and discourages me from continuing to set almost as much as the reviewing team. The balance of that is those who do take the time to tell me about their story. Love those, and sometimes drop them a line afterwards to say thanks.
I’m not so keen on people placing NM logs unless where clearly needed. Had many which were posted in error and it makes the whole series look unloved.
Also, amusingly, I had a friend complete Ups and Downs and swear on his life that three were missing. All found by the next cacher, along with #3 which has now gained a new log in a bag. I’m guessing the original has migrated, but I’m told it’s still there – so now there are two.
So I would add another:
Put the ruddy cache back where you found it! Not a foot away, not in another hole that you think suits it better. WHERE YOU FOUND IT!Boundary title is sometimes complicated and unclear – the boundary lines on the land registry maps used can be up to 11 meters out, legally. It’s very common for landowners not to know who owns a hedge themselves, not every boundary line has the lines indicating ownership.
Roadsides are generally easier though – typically the landowner owns the land to the centre of the road, but not the road itself. I’m a little fuzzy on the road part, but fairly clear that hedges are usually owned by the field owner behind them, and upkeep is their responsibility; hedge trimming is usually done by that farmer or local farmers pool resources and share the job.
Sometimes though, the council pays for a specialist to do hedge cutting too – especially on major routes.
But don’t tell the reviewers, they’ll probably ban every cache within 100 meters of a road…
Pretty sure I’m off the christmas card list too, MP!
It stinks, but they hold all the cards. It’s been pointed out that Graculus is liaison for the reviewers, so perhaps he truly speaks with the voice of all and that every suggestion put forward and fielded by him is taken before the group and discussed and a democratic decision formed.
But given the speed of the “No” responses, I do feel that once a decision is made, there’s no discussion, no negotiation, no movement. What’s decided is what will happen, because it’s beyond doubt it is the right decision and if you disagree, you are being unreasonable.
I think this is bad for geocaching, but I don’t think groundspeak care very much, or monitor reviewers activities. Certainly they, and the reviewers as a body, are a long way from transparent.
But… It’s a great hobby and has enough inertia for such bad management at all levels not to massively affect it. What is a shame is that frustrations like this force out so many great cache owners, and has been pointed out, without these the hobby suffers.
I shouldn’t care about the unfairness so much. But I like setting caches, sharing a nice walk, maintaining them and enjoying the feedback I get from the cachers. If I wasn’t a CO I certainly wouldn’t care so much and I totally understand muddypuddles’ decision to revert. Maybe that’s the key to being a happy cacher – just stop giving back into the hobby and focus on the finding?
“Incredible – 86 finds in less than 2 months [8D]! ”
Amazing, isn’t it?
Shows how much interest there is in a relatively high density walk in a beautiful place.
Grumpy old sorts will mutter “Sure, it’s all about the numbers” and yes, of course. Without a geocache to search for, we wouldn’t be geocachers, just walkers. Two geocaches make it twice as good, and so on…
(NOT denigrating isolated caches which have their own charm and worth!)
I find this very frustrating.
Graculus appears to revel in his role of “Bad News Fairy” far, far too much, and does not represent UK geocachers. The other reviewers seem to (at least publically) support each other without question, and the public generally respect and support them too. When a wrong decision is made (inevitable with any organisation) toes are dug in and there is never any bending or consultation.
This is bad for geocaching. CO’s don’t feel supported or nurtured – reviewers are there to say no.
In this particular case, there is no MOD ban. Without a land owner identifying the land affected by that land owner, no ban could reasonably be expected to be enforced. Again, we come back to one reviewer running around shouting “You can’t cache there! No! No!” and drawing up their own, inaccurate maps without any consideration, consultation or notification – and without ANY NEED.
My guess at the motive is simple attention-seeking. Maybe there’s another, or I’m entirely wrong.
Whatever, this arrangement is not normal, balanced or fair – nor does it represent geocaching well.
finderman – as reviewers choose those they want to join their ranks, once a group evolves into something like this, the chance of it changing doesn’t seem to be very high. They’re not going to ask people to join who challenge them or ask difficult questions, it’s “Them and us”.
We’re the dumb sheep who should just graze quietly under the watchful eye of the shepherds who, of course, have our best interests at heart.
For the benefit of those not on facebook (which, whatever you think of it, is a useful tool for asking a public question)
Apologies for crappy quoting;
(From me)
Question for the Southwest reviewers; Now that GAGB have posted the letter from the MOD explicitly saying they claim no control over areas not owned by the MOD (ie, everywhere but Willsworth); has the temporary ban on listing caches in Okehampton and Merrivale ranges been lifted? (If there’s any confusion amongst reviewers which are is which, I’d be happy to advise)
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · 22 hours agoChris Dale No is the answer, the ban stays for now. If you look at the OS map of Dartmoor, the Willsworth range (MOD owned) has no obvious clear boundary to the Okehampton range to it’s east or the Merrivale range to the south. The whole area of all 3 ranges is outlined with red triangles. That is all we have to go on. We need the maps from the MOD to show exactly what is MOD estate and what is not. At the moment the ‘ban’ we imposed is just to stop new caches being placed until such time as know for certain where things are. Can you imagine the outcry if we used this arbitrary boundary to say which caches had to be removed and which could stay?
20 hours ago · Like(Me) Well, actually – Willsworthy is a bit special. It was gifted to the War Department for their use, and the exact boundary is clearly defined by marker stones carved “WD”. Its boundary is one of the clearest defined, as it has both those *and* the modern plastic range warning poles.
I understand your reasoning though, from the perspective of somebody without local knowledge.
But… It’s clear the original widespread ban was not required, so surely a lifting of all areas would be fairer and allow the game to continue, whilst making it clear that when the MOD *do* officially ban it, with accurate mapping to that effect (and they can’t expect any ban to be applied without that information), that all geocaches on that land, including the eight historical geocaches within Willsworthy and any that fall within these grounds, will be archived? As it is, the reviewers don’t have enough information to apply a ban, other than what seems to be an over-reactive “Let’s ban everywhere on Dartmoor the MOD goes” even after the MOD have stated very clearly they cannot ban the majority currently banned.
Those original maps were both inaccurate and premature, and in my mind, need ignoring soonest as it gives entirely the wrong impression that geocaching.com do not want us using Dartmoor (against the statements of both the landowner (Duchy) and the principle land manager (Dartmoor National Park) – both of whom actively encourage it)
If you wanted to hedge safely on the OKehampton range boundary, why not just restrict anything within, say, a mile of that? It would go a long way to restoring faith in the fairness of this system, which has been quite dented of late.
13 hours ago · LikeChris Dale The Willsworthy range is the only one the MOD mentioned that they own. There are many, many more areas around the whole country that they have not mentioned. Can you imagine the outcry if we ‘opened’ the Merrivale and Okehampton ranges to cachers but not any others? I don’t think that would restore fairness in the system at all, would it? It is best to wait until the MOD gives us the maps then it can all be done nice and tidily.
12 hours ago · LikeSimon Avery That logic makes no sense. That land is not owned by the mod, its not fair to restrict it in their name. I genuinely don’t understand your viewpoint, this is like banning geocaches in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset because of a decision pending in Cornwall.
11 hours ago via mobile · LikePeter Bowyer No, it’s like making sure all of the detail is to hand, triple-checking everything, and making a decisive move. One which will stick and not be liable to variation or mis-interpretation. Which is a very sensible thing indeed. No lives are at risk if some areas of Devon do not have any new caches deployed for a few weeks more.
10 hours ago · Like · 2Fil Northerner I’m with the reviewers here… What is the rush to publish new caches ? Locations can be scouted out while the ban is in force – and then they can be published when there is a definitive map of MOD land holdings available – assuming that the MOD don’t own the land you want to put a cache on
Could always do a Wherigo or Multi at Willsworthy Range, just be sure to put the final physical just outside 🙂
Posted today on GAGB’s Facebook page (although not yet on their website), some rather important news;
<i>
We have received a written statement from MoD following the recent GAGB/MoD meeting. In summary, Physical caches on MoD owned estate (freehold/leasehold) are NOT permitted and if currently in place then MoD request that these are removed. Virtual caches (including Earthcaches and virtual stages of multi-caches, Puzzle and Wherigos) are permitted on MoD estate where the public has access. Cache pages should give any appropriate safety messages.Where MoD is not the owner/leaseholder, then they advise that they have no control over geocaching or other recreational activities and that it remains the landowner’s decision to allow geocaching. Dartmoor is an example of such an area.
We understand that MoD are intending to remove containers from their estate, whether geocaches, letterboxes or others. Therefore geocachers owning affected caches are requested to recover these where appropriate.
Please see the letter from MoD on the GAGB forum, follow the link below.
If you have any questions about this or the letter from MoD then please ask them in the thread on the GAGB forums before the end of September so that we can collate them and pass them on to the relevant person.
</i>Not just *a* QR reader, but the Munzee app. That both registers the munzee, and also the location via the phone’s gps to ensure you’re not cheating.
It’s similar in that there’s a map showing you where the things are and you have to search for them, but… That’s about it.
I had the app but never did one. My phone is a work issued one, and it stays off when I’m not working. If it’s on, I get work texts or calls and boom, there goes my day-off mood. I carry it for emergencies only when walking.
When I did try it, a couple of times, it was a lot of faff and I never succeeded. Firstly my phone takes ages to start (8 minutes if from cold, at least 2 from standby), and if I had it on anyway, both times I tried (once on the CCC trail) I had no data signal and I wasted about ten minutes trying to get it working.
So not for me. I don’t have a problem with the things, and they’re not so common they’re intrusive in any way. Just not a game I care to play.
I’ve offered to take on Satan’s pit as it’s one of my favourites and not far away from the 3/4 Knights View series I already adopted (Or Satin’s Pit, as somebody on the facebook page just called it. After finding lots of pair of fancy knickers around a cornish GZ today, that sounds much more exciting!)
But if Ipplepen chose somebody else who was going to look after it I wouldn’t be too upset, as I’m thinking I’m a little over-extended also.
And sadly, I suck at puzzles so many of these caches remain hidden to me. I did try “Bird” when I was walking Lustleigh cleave, but I couldn’t figure it out.
I also considered Spitchwick, as I doubt it would be given permission now if it needed to be replaced. I would take that on if nobody else stepped forwards, but it’s not on a route I travel that often.
