Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks, Dave, for taking this on. I had an email today which has raised a couple of points that I think should be put to the DNPA when you speak to them:
1. Finding out who actually owns a piece of land within the DNP is very difficult, and if this was a requirement for cache placement then it would be useful to build up a database of owners on your site to contact. If the DNP mean that they wish you to have their permission to place a cache, rather than that of the landowner, then this would be unnecessary.
2. The second point is: does the nominated contact within the DNP really want to spend their time answering an endless stream of cache placement requests for individual caches? They may think that it’s a good idea in principle, but I think they probably have better uses for their time, and a blanket agreement, as before, might be in their best interests.
Just something to consider.
I have had clarification from the reviewer, and the changes, according to Groundspeak, mean that the changes only apply to SSSIs. This is at odds with the DNPA website, whose guidelines state that the landowner’s permission will need to be sought to place a cache, which I take to mean every cache. This website goes on to say that the DNPA will need to be contacted if a placer has concerns about the proposed site if it is in an SSSI, which clearly doesn’t mean contact is mandatory for SSSIs. Groundspeak’s interpretation of these guidelines appears to be inconsistent and I think some clarification is needed.
As I understand from the reviewer and the DNP website, permission will be needed for every cache, not just those in SSSIs. This is major setback after it looked like a sensible arrangement had been made between the DNPA and GAGB. I look forward to hearing what the DNPA have to say when you speak to them.
I can’t see that they will want to be bothered by potential cache setters contacting them about every single potential cache.
I am dead impressed with the additional layers. Having the OS maps on tap makes planning a caching trip much easier. Thanks to TC for pointing this out. How do you find this stuff out, and what else do you have up your sleeve? I too would be very interested to have puzzle/multi caches shown in their correct position…
Blimey, I didn’t realise this was going to cause quite such a stir! I can’t answer for the CO (I see he is a member here, so if he wants to reply I’m sure he will). I saw reb10’s DNF before I went, and the clue seemed pretty clear, which is why I checked with the CO before leaving home, and which is why I had the spare container with me. I can see that others hold a different view, but if I know for certain a cache has gone, and especially with the CO’s consent, I am happy to replace the container for them – I believe it’s good caching etiquette. I also cannot see the problem with logging the find in that case. After all, if this wasn’t allowed, then cachers wouldn’t do each other the courtesy of replacing the missing containers, as why should they? It costs money to buy the container and prepare it, and time to assemble the cache and walk out and place it. If you’re not even going to get a smiley for your pains, why bother? I’m afraid I don’t agree that it is wrong to log a find in this situation, FTF or otherwise. If the CO does disapprove of other cachers doing this to their caches then they will have to accept that all of the cache maintenance will fall to them, which might prove to be more of a nuisance than accepting the help when it is offered. Also, this is all just for fun, so if the CO and the finder are happy with their agreement, then it really is up them about how they go about things.
I guess the situation here is that, like everything else in life, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to geocaching. Odd though it may seem, I really don’t like searching for caches – I got into geocaching because I enjoy walking, and I like to visit new places and see great scenery. I do appreciate clever hides, where some effort has gone into concealment, but I’m not a lover of grubbing around in leaf litter for caches, so I always use every scrap of information that is available before getting to a cache, which includes all hints, photos and previous logs, to minimise the amount of time I have to spend searching. Because of this I usually try to hide my caches in obvious places, with hints and spoilers for those that want them.
Well that’s a big question, DD! I know some (most?) cachers loathe this type of cache, but for me, they add an entirely new dimension to this great pastime of ours. I enjoy the hunt for the solution, and spending hours racking my brains, or trawling the interweb makes finding that solution all the more rewarding, and you learn fascinating new things in the process. The same is true when setting the blessed things too. But here’s a thought for you: a while back I had a negative comment about the location of the final in one of my caches, which was justified as it happens, it was pretty useless. I hadn’t given the location of my finals too much thought up to that point, as I thought most of the fun of this type of cache was in solving the puzzle. But that’s not entirely true, and therein lies a problem. If you should choose a good location for a final, which I have tried to do since that log, you then rule out the possibility of someone else placing a traditional cache in that location due to proximity rules. This deprives the non-puzzlers (the majority) in our community of a good find, and good locations are what draws most of us to this pastime in the first place. Catch-22 maybe. Nevertheless, I think a puzzle is always better if the final would stand as a good cache in its own right. Summary: more puzzles please!
If you find a cache and can’t get at the physical log due to poor maintenance on the CO’s part then personally I would claim it as a find myself. Replacing a lost container I would also count, but only if it is actually confirmed missing, as in by a previous visitor or a completely unambiguous spoiler. If in doubt I will sometimes take a photo to confirm with the CO. I must admit that I never check physical logs when I maintain my own caches, as to be honest, life’s too short.
This is a thorny issue, and it’s too easy to cause unintended offence by email in general, and in this situation by casual logs. I personally feel uncomfortable telling somone their cache is a load of rubbish (although have been unable to contain myself on a couple of occasions, tut tut). In this situation a simple “TFTC” can be used as a cork in a bottle that is best kept shut. Having said that I think maybe people are busy and in too big a rush to log their finds to spend the time thinking of anything more, and no criticism is being implied. That’s the problem though, you don’t know what the finder really thinks of your cache. As regards long series, there’s no way I’ll be able to remember them apart, so I make paper notes as I go along, just to put something meaningful in the logs as I agree that cut-and-paste logs are a bit lazy.
I have no problem with caches being archived when the owner has moved on from geocaching, as a new cache will generate renewed interest in the area, and I think the whole of geocaching in general is benefitted by the dynamism of new caches. Turning over new caches keeps interest fresh.
There are some situations where adoption is desirable, however, such as granfathered cache types. If these are not adopted then we will gradually lose all those Virtuals, moving caches and caches placed in locations that would no longer be tolerated by our masters at GC.com. (I think we can blame MAGIC for this last problem).
The only difficulty is that there is no mechanism in place for taking over a cache without the owner actively giving it to you, and if they’ve lost interest in caching then that won’t happen and the cache will be lost.
I’m afraid it wouldn’t fit in my Garage, Dave, there’s far too much “work in progress” going on, by which I mean tat. I did check up on the cache, and it’s still there. Anyone who’s been to another of this series will know what to look for.
