Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Oops, guess I mis-remembered Spitchwick’s details!
I don’t know that GAGB have any powers with Groundspeak themselves other than a community group that petitions and then publicises (bad news). My concern more is the influence they have over the UK Reviewers.
Unless you’re a member I doubt you can influence their actions at all, they do seem very closed ranks and quite unwilling to enter into discussions – perhaps as a result of criticism from those such as me – but my view is they take themselves far too seriously and see themselves as saviours of geocaching, without actually fighting our corner at all. (Just a personal view, which may change)
I don’t see anything stopping individuals or other groups approaching anyone in the name of geocaching to negotiate permissions and then publicising the findings. The reviewers should accept decent proof as per groundspeak’s rules, even if it doesn’t come from the GAGB (as they did with Dave’s SSSI agreement)
reb10: That boat’s already rocking, that GAGB saw to that!
DD: Good. I’ll back off the GAGB and Reviewers a bit, I’m sure they’re all sick of me now anyway, and there’s probably little ground I can make there so very pleased to wait until proof can be gained (even though no proof was needed to impose the ban – and if the MOD can’t supply maps, they can’t expect a ban to be upheld by others).
CP: Good, too! Anyone reading this would think we’d coordinated together, but it seems we’ve each taken independant routes that haven’t conflicted by accident!
The Roos Tor ban is clearly ridiculous, and once this bigger issue is dealt with I hope to dig into that a little too. Brentorboxer has clued me into some of the history there.
Spitchwick seems a little more clear-cut, since it also bans letterboxing. Personally I avoid that area at any time other than winter because it’s usually overflowing with radios, bbq’s and kids and I like my peace and quiet out on the moor!
I wonder… If there might be some scope in the future for approaching Groundspeak about “National Park Reviewers” – individual volunteers who are regular reviewers but have personal knowledge about these very special places that really aren’t like the rest of the UK?
For info. Talking via Facebook and the Reviewer’s Tea Bar, as I was getting no answers on the Groundspeak forums;
Simon Avery
What’s the official line on the “possible” MOD ban, and does it apply to land owned by the mod, or land owned and used by the mod?
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · Friday at 17:50Karen Vernon likes this.
Chris Dale Please see the article about the MOD in the UK Geocaching Wiki : https://wiki.groundspeak.com/display/GEO/United+Kingdom+Landowner+Agreements#UnitedKingdomLandownerAgreements-mod
United Kingdom Landowner Agreements – Geocaching.com Wiki – Groundspeak Wiki
wiki.groundspeak.com
This database contains a list of landowners and managers who approve of geocachi…See more
21 hours ago · LikeSimon Avery Thank you. Next question; Who do I talk to about an area that has been included in error in these maps?
19 hours ago · Like
Simon Evans You would need to provide your local reviewer with written confirmation from the landowner and MOD to confirm that the MOD do not use this land and that there is an error with the mapping. Without this a cache in this area would not be published.
18 hours ago via mobile · LikeSimon Avery Thanks again, but “use this land” is not the same as “own this land”. I don’t think it is within anyone’s remit to ban geocaching on another landowner’s property and certainly not within the groundspeak guidelines. Can you confirm you meant “own this land”?
18 hours ago · LikeChris Dale The MOD announced the ban on MOD Estate land (land they own). They have so far not provided anyone (certainly not us reviewers) with any maps of the Estate land. The areas shown on the Google map are just training areas and ranges the MOD may own but certainly use that we’ve been able to identify. If some of these are not owned by the MOD but rented from landowners we do not know what the terms of any ‘rental agreement’ are. It may be the MOD consider the land to be ‘theirs’, for their use and all their rules and regulations may apply. It may be that the landowner can control what goes on there. The MOD ‘may’ consider the geocaching ban extends to such land. We have erred on the side of caution and until such time as a landowner AND the MOD confirm to us geocaching on such land is OK we will continue to refuse caches there. At the moment we reviewers are not working directly with the MOD to resolve this because that is being done by the GAGB and we will of course provide any such help that we can.
13 hours ago · LikeSimon Avery Thank you, this is the most information I have yet received!
I appreciate and can even agree to a hiatus while this is absorbed and ratified (provided no existing caches are archived that are already on these lands) for a period.
However – my point will remain that the Groundspeak rules specify landowners, not land users – and if it can be proven that any land marked as restricted by a ban by the MOD is not owned by them, they *cannot* influence Groundspeak and the Reviewer’s decisions unless they persuade the landowner to object on their behalf. If the reviewers or GAGB act differently to this, they are breaching Groundspeak’s own rules.
A few seconds ago · LikeCertainly looking forwards to doing this DD’s new trail very soon – looks like a beauty. Walked almost exactly this route a couple of months ago on a lovely evening surrounded by nonstop skylarks.
http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=312527
The GAGB triggered this ban by seeking to appeal a single refusal by escalating it.
Firstly; it was a sad day when I realised that some letterboxes hate geocaches and anything to do with them.
Secondly; some people moan about everything and you should not go out of your way to please everyone.
One cache log I read recently, whilst sitting in evening sun miles from anywhere said “Found whilst letterboxing. What a lovely idea, we’ll join up when we get home to Cornwall”
Thirdly; Many letterboxers would not want the coordinates of their boxes posted publically. I suspect you already know this and are testing the water… 🙂
Or do what I do, load both on my gps. And those from opencaching.org.uk (NOT the same).
You don’t have to choose.
Thanks for clearing that up, PR!
I agree the opencaching.com site is interesting, and good that they’ve not just copied either .org.uk or geocaching.com and some things are much easier (getting a gpx), but poking further you realise a lot of the deeper stuff isn’t there. I found it difficult to contact you through the site, for example – and ended up going to geocaching.com!
Garmin have certainly pushed it hard, and upgraded basecamp and many GPS’s to accomodate them. Opencaching caches appear differently on my Oregons – showing lots of different ratings, including one called “Awesomeness”… (Icky americanisms!)
But it’s a worthy site and one day there may be more users. I certainly keep an eye.
Just as a follow up to my previous post – the day after I mention my only-listed-on-opencaching.com cache has not been found, Plymbridge Runner finds it. Coincidence!
FTF after nine months for something a quarter of a mile from a car park. Bit different! Anyway, off-topic now.
opencaching.com does have reviewers – if you submit (and I have quite a few on there), there is a period of submission where your cache is peer reviewed, and if no negatives are posted it will be approved.
An interesting system.
Drawbacks:
1.Somebody with a grudge could consistently blackmark your caches.
2. Nobody uses it.
Of the caches I’ve had on there for over a year, I’ve had 3 or 4 finds. I put a cache out by Venford about 8 months ago and listed only there which has not yet had a single attempt.
I’m guessing DNPA have had GPSr’s donated by Garmin on the provision they place and promote caches much as the National Trust have done for a few years now.
I see nothing bad about doing this, and much good.
The MOD ruling says “land owned by the MOD”. The reviewers have said the same thing, and groundspeak’s rules require only permission from the landowner.
I have asked the reviewers for clarification of that for Dartmoor.
Personally, if I have to rule Willsworthy range out of placing caches, I can accept that. I won’t like it, but will accept it.
The MOD also own a lot of coast path, housing estates, even entire villages around the country. I don’t think the widespread scope of this decision has sunk in, because most people don’t understand just how much land they (us) own.
Incidentally, this one decision has changed me from somebody who happily accepted live fire training, indeed even enjoyed my encounters with the military (and I have many about grassy hummocks saying “Alright mate!” etc) on Dartmoor into somebody who will oppose it in future.
The MOD have created a rule that prevents me enjoying the moor alongside them, not just on Dartmoor but at many other places owned by them.
Interesting times, and all that. GAGB’s announcement, then quick resolution, make it unclear what they did on our behalf.
http://gagb.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5124%22%5Dhere%5B%2Furl
To be fair, maybe there was nothing they could do.
By the letter of that, “not on MOD land”, if Groundspeak refuse caches on land not owned by MOD, merely leased “NON-EXCLUSIVELY” by them, they should be allowed. But GS traditionally have little spirit in negotiating on behalf of cachers in the UK.
I visited the letterboxing forums and saw no mention of this, so posted a thread highlighting it; http://www.dartmoorletterboxing.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=18053#18053
What next? I will be contacting DNPA and Groundspeak, and if I can get a contact for anyone at the MOD who may have influence, them too. And of course spreading the word.
Geocachers are an easy target (military metaphor!) as we can be shut down by one rule and groundspeak will accept it. My thoughts are that letterboxers (many of whom also cache) have far more power than cachers given their long history and decentralisation.
This is a stupid, blinkered and arrogant decision by the MOD that shows no sign of consultation, negotiation or consideration of the public they share land with. Risking a political view, I’m sick of my personal freedoms being removed over and over again in the name of anti-terrorism.
I’ve had a few problems with my oregons, but eventually they were traced to a bad cable.
After such an accident I really wouldn’t be too hopeful. Time for a new one?
Our fields have deer that go through them, and who bring in ticks at a prodigious rate. I’ve pulled up to 30 ticks off one of my ponies in an evening at peak season and the dogs get quite a few too.
And when camping on the Southwest Coast Path one evening, I turned on the light to see dozens of them climbing up the inside of the tent wall! Didn’t get much sleep after that.
Despite all that, I’ve never knowingly been bitten by one, or leeches, although I do get bitten by fleas now and then.
If you look at the cost for what we get out of it, yes – that’s reasonable. But what are groundspeak providing for that? A website that’s often slow and unusable, and a database full of our content. Caches and logs are made by the users, the website just glues them together. Even the stats have been done better by others for free. The map needs GME to make it better (and why don’t GS take these very popular features and roll them into the core?)
(BTW, car fuel. I find it doesn’t seem so expensive if you think of it as liquified explosive dinosaurs)
Muddypuddles is right about the monopoly, and that they can afford to ignore us. It is a business, and it’s all business, but it’s not good business.
I like the idea of a gateway site, especially if it could display everything on one great map and build PQ’s, handle field notes and do logging all in one place. That would be quite nifty!
But if it got popular and threatened them, wouldn’t groundspeak prevent access? (the backend API is used by apps and some web services to give access to information, but this generally requires a premium membership too)
I’m not sure they need our money so much that they care about losing a few premium members here or there. Probably prefer it if it gives them a quiet life.
(Tamerton: Kinda. They’ve said if you have recurring membership (ie, you trust gs enough to store your CC details in their database), you won’t be affected – but that people who pay when it’s due will. But communication and truth have both suffered so far, so who knows?)
A percentage of new cachers want to place caches. I was no different and placed my first well before I hit 200, and it lasted up until recently. It was nothing special and actually a fairly poor hide – but did highlight some interesting local history that I felt was worth sharing.
The only statistical thing about low count players I think is that a percentage will drop out entirely, same as with any hobby. Lots of enthusiasm at the start, then once the honeymoon’s over, a dip and at that point they might leave, or perhaps regain some interest and a long term levelling out. I think those who combine caching with other things tend to last longer – those who cache in combination with walking or dog-walking as companion hobbies might get more miles out of it. (Pun intended)
High counters have shown they enjoy the hobby enough to have racked up some big numbers in finding, and have had more time to “give back” by placing hides. They’re not supermen, just have stuck with it. Whether than makes them “good” COs or not is probably too broad a question.
Those who do stop maintaining their caches are probably less likely to place any more, once they realise the downsides to cache ownership – so the problem, if it exists, tends to self-extinguish fairly quickly.
So I don’t think it’s a big problem. Certainly not one that requires yet more rules.
Whenever this topic comes up, I like to cite kevham1 who, with ceekay1, have 370 of the best maintained caches out there.
Bitchiness and petty backbiting exist in all aspects of human interaction, and geocaching’s certainly not exempt.
Not sure it would make much difference in the grand scheme of things, y’know.
Sure, there’s be a rush at first, might even be noticable to the locals – but much less intrusive than the several cycle races held across the moor a year. Geocaching is still a very very niche hobby and these might get 2 or 3 visits a week after that first surge of interest – that’s how many the three “Knights View” roadside caches I adopted get.
Some people can’t reach the remote areas of the moor for various reasons. I don’t see why roadside and remote caches can’t co-exist quite happily.
Yes, it stopped on my laptop and desktop yesterday, so I’m assuming groundspeak did a minor change somewhere.
However – I upgraded the GME script and it started working again, turns out I was using quite an old one and it hadn’t automatically updated.
Hi Vardini, Some interesting things there – and pleased you enjoyed my puzzle cache 😉
The health aspect is a great one – I started walking more a few years ago after a combination of giving up smoking and changing to a desk job meant I put on weight, and shortly after starting walking again I discovered caching. It’s made me much fitter, although sadly hasn’t done much about the weight. But I quietly rationalise this by saying to myself – “You weigh 18 stone and can walk over 15 miles, you’re a super athlete!”
Dartmoor’s not /always/ cold and harsh. Some days it’s the best place in the world to be. Warm, soft, welcoming – and in the right place – without dozens of people, screaming children, radios or even a sense of time. Hard to find that elsewhere.
Goldenhaystacks, that sucks! Not so much you’ve got the decision to half somebody’s total finds… But that they’ve taken TB3N64Z and hung onto it since August last year.
DD – I’ve had a complaint by a TB owner that the cache I left it was “too remote” and “unlikely to be found quickly”.
Can’t please ’em all. 🙂
Tri is right – I got in contact with the cacher and they said the site threw an error, and on facebook others also reported problems last night. Guess there’ll be a few more dupes after today!
Turns out project-gc also has a graph for “who’s found the most archived caches” – see below for Devon.
I find the first place one somewhat implausible, given they have only 146 total finds!
I’m very happy that there is a wide variety and lots to choose from. My only complaint now is that too many near to home are now yellow, pushing me further and further each time!
My first was ” Heart of Dartmoor: … and Lows ” by muddypuddles. Just a film pot, but I already knew this was a hobby I wanted to do. 1,500 caches later and this hobby has taught me a huge amount about the world in which I live, even areas that I thought I knew very well – somebody else always knows something more, a bit of history, an interesting feature, a great view.
Caching has enriched my life and taken me out into places I would never have otherwise gone and made me fitter for it, so I’m quite grateful for that little film put behind a pony, and when muddypuddles gave up his caches I asked to adopt it, and now own the first cache I ever found.
Dave, no, I’m not upset about your comment. My first series had several unusual containers, but a series of 26 is never going to be easy to make special containers for. There’s also a logistical issue. Great Plantation’s containers include various logs, fence posts and bricks – one weighing about 10kg. Now try carrying 26 of those up hill and down dale!
I also took time to fill those with swag. I didn’t bother with this one because it’s not an aspect to the game *I* enjoy, and the fact is that it’s a rare cache indeed where swag doesn’t get down-traded and you end up with the rusty and mushy contents you describe in another thread.
And also… When being innovative, I’d rather do it as a surprise, such as #21, where the cacher has been trained not to look for something unusual. If every container had been unusual, but then it would have become humdrum.
Isn’t it fantastic that all use cache owners have different ideas about what makes a good trail? That ensures diversity and interest to all cachers. Be a boring old world if we all did things exactly the same, now wouldn’t it?
Hobo – the six month thing. I don’t mind this at all, it gives me impetus to go and do it. And I disagree that a letterbox walk doesn’t make a good geocache walk, and I’ve done plenty of both. I’d like to hear your opinion on why you think they’re so different.
Well, it’s explained clearly. The CO asked me to point this out;
[i]”Hobo and Miss
Sorry you didn’t enjoy the trail. If the gorse bushes weren’t there, there would be nowhere to hide the caches, my previous walk in the area was very much enjoyed by many letterboxers and has raised hundreds of pounds for the charity I support, the same letterboxers have also purchased my new charity walk in the Wheal Betsy area, when I take the walk in after the 6 months I shall be putting out another geocaching walk like this, may I suggest you steer clear of it due to even more gorse bushes in that area.”[/i]And honestly, why the sniffiness? From several people here, not just H&M.
Yes, geocaching IS about the numbers, so is letterboxing (100 club, badges for higher numbers to show off your experience), so is walking in itself (miles, not hours – how we do like to keep score). We’ve had this discussion several times and it is human nature. Even the owner of this site won’t list you in his rankings until you’ve done over a thousand (and he’s even quite tardy in this, hint!).
I respect those who, like reb10, enjoy a walk with or without caches. I like walks AND caches, and if they’re close together, great – best of both worlds – to the extent that there are still so many unfound caches within my reach, I rarely go for a long walk without a cache plan in place.
But it seems that respect isn’t always two-way. Don’t look down on those who enjoy a series with hides close together, or those who seek out short circuits because they’re inexperienced, have young families, aren’t fit enough for a long walk, don’t have time – whatever. They’re still doing something a lot better than sitting on their arse in front of the tv letting their brains rot.
Closely spaced trails are very obvious on the map, so just stay clear if you don’t like ’em. Don’t do them and then moan about it, it’s disrespectful of those who take the time to place caches at all and makes it less likely they’ll bother at all.
Dave will remember some comments made by others about my first series. I damned near gave up caching altogether because of them. Dave himself made a point of being complimentary and supportive, and others too. I now know, with more experience, that those comments were unwarranted and actually quite spiteful, so I do get pissed off when people are unduly critical. Fortunately, this is rare in caching.
Or you are too difficult to please, Hobo? Grump instead of manners? 🙂
(I carried on up Gibbet hill as I’ve not been up there before, and yes, the views are spectacular from there on a clear day)
DD – Smallacombe. I didn’t actually realise it was there until I got back. That said, having seen the string of DNF’s now I probably would have just added to them.
If you’re planning a trail just to please me, I warn you, the hides must be easy to find!
I think that’s undeservedly harsh.
I enjoyed the series a lot. Fantastic views, mining history and a nice walk in an area I haven’t tromped before. The containers weren’t micros, the coords excellent and the clues helpful.
For all the gorse, I only got prickles in the first one before I learned they could all be unhooked easily.
There’s little more that I could have asked for and drove away very happy.
reb10: Yes, lots of scope for variety and each to their own. A little walk like this (and I’m heading out there in a mo) will attract a lot of people though, which I think is great. I love dartmoor and want others to enjoy it too. (Although every year it gets harder to find solitude, so there’s a certain internal conflict going on!)
DD: nice of you to say so. 🙂
DD – I claimed a virtual on Heltor, as you’ll have seen. I thought, wrote and justified it in the log. I think the hide might have been better off the rock itself, but then some may not have climbed up and seen a superb view and interesting holes.
GH – well said, and Wildebeest has placed many caches in interesting places and created a series in the valley where I live. The third cache I ever found was one. (Warty Chin, now adjacent to another trail of mine!). I owe thanks.
But the problem here is not the description, nor that it probably moved away from the spoiler or gone entirely (there was evidence of drinkers using Heltor last week, including a glass bottle entirely frozen in the solid ice of one of the rockpools), and burnt wood from either a bonfire or the Jubilee beacons)
This cache has had more searchers in the past week than for some time, and for all of them to produce DNFs I do have to think it has gone. (But then I thought the same of Blackinstone rock, claimed a virtual there as per the CO’s wishes – and he made it clear that’s what he wanted done, and it later turned up – although how I have no idea as I gave a very thorough inspection.)
The problem is that Wildebeest no longer caches and that all his hides are slowly being archived through lack of maintenance. I emailed him a couple of times and never got a response so I couldn’t even adopt them.
Delighted to see a perfect example of what I’ve been talking about published today!
GC48YFP by Brentorboxer. 15 caches in an “easy” circular walk on open moorland. http://coord.info/GC48YFP
Further, it’s following the course of owner’s charity letterbox walk. Am hoping to get out there very soon for a bit of a bimble. Spoken to the owner today and they’re planning to do something very similar on another of their charity walks soon too. Great stuff!
There is, I believe, occasion when this is too simplistic to take the third option; Write note.
“DNA” = did not attempt, for reasons such as muggles, car parked next to it, picnics on top of it etc.
Putting a DNF for this… Well I’ve done it, but lately I’ve become aware that many people use the Found/DNF count to indicate if there’s a problem or if it’s particularly difficult – and choose not to go near.
(As a bit of fun and because I was bored the other night, I spent ten minutes logging DNF’s on half a dozen “Do not find this cache!” variants from New Zealand, Germany and America… )
I don’t see the point in keeping archived caches servicable. Nobody will know they’re there, or care.
If you particularly want to, why not re-list them as a new cache?
There are those with far more than my 50-odd, but my answer is: I don’t.
Honestly, I rarely read the logfiles – only those where I’ve supplied a proper book when sometimes cachers write a little story. Sometimes people log with different names if they’re going as a group, or names are really hard to read (especially with some waterproof paper). For the first year of being a CO I kept all my old logs carefully, and filled up some boxes with them. Then I thought; “Why am I doing this?” and now I skim them and bin them.
Logs are there mostly as closure for the cacher, imo. I certainly enjoy the physical act of signing and dating. Sometimes to confirm if there’s doubt, too, but generally I take the pragmatic view.
I do delete the odd log, usually where somebody has logged twice, after letting them know. For some reason GS let this count twice, although the true count is still there on the stats, the main one is incremented by however many times somebody logs the same cache. I’ve spotted some cachers who make a habit of this and they’re total/ uniques are quite different.
My understanding of the definition is that it originated in America and was for very long series intended to be completed by car. There’s quite a lot of info, videos etc. Every 0.1m there is a cache on the guardrail. Drive, jump out, sign, jump in.
Over 1,000 caches in a day have been achieved by teams working together, taking turns to jump out and sign. In some cases, not even sign, just slap a sticker on the outside of the cache, sometimes without even getting out of the car! Averaging one minute PER CACHE, including travelling.
Each to their own, but that doesn’t sound like fun to me, and why I dislike the term “Power trail” when applied to a walking series or series, even if the density is the same.
