Complaints about Geocaches

[Brentorboxer]

I really think it is about time there was a complaints procedure for miss-placed geocaches on Dartmoor, I have spoken to several letterboxers who are also geocachers they all come across caches which should never have been approved. I have spoken out on numerous occasions about miss-placed caches, (all the caches I have complained about have been removed or re-sited) but there are still some out there that should be moved.
Sometime ago I asked cachers on the forum not to put caches in church grounds, as I considered it not an appropriate place, I got a lot of negative replies. It is interesting to see caching in and around churches has been now banned!
On the groundspeak forum a letterboxer Alan Wilborne, a month ago has complained about 2 caches both of which he considers miss-placed. He posted his message on the forum in good faith, some of the replies I consider rude, and all he was trying to do is help.
I am wondering if this is the way UK geocachers deal with complaints, a few cachers get on the forum and “have a go” at the person who dares to criticise.
By the way I agree with Alan both the caches he found, were in unsuitable sites, these two caches are not the only ones that need resiting.
I was interested to read Kehotee’s interpretation of
"Please remember that a user and National Park friendly letterbox is sited...in a natural hole or cavity away from archaeologically and ecologically sensitive sites”
Which seems to be:
Presumably archaeologically and ecologically sensitive sites are Scheduled Ancient Monuments and SSSIs respectively...

Moving on from this I decided to email the DNPA to get the exact details of where we should or shouldn’t caching.
Reply sent today from Andrew Watson [awatson@dartmoor-npa.gov.uk]

Dear Margaret

Thank you for your email. We ask people placing letterboxes or geocaches to carefully consider the suitability of a site for locating a letterbox/geocache. Sites should be avoided that are within rare bird nesting areas and on clitter slopes, and on other sensitive areas such as blanket bogs and mires. Dartmoor contains over 19,000 sites of archaeological interest, not all of these will be recorded Scheduled Ancient Monuments. These sites should be avoided in order to prevent damage or disturbance.

Andrew

….and not a mention of SSSI, how strange, only conclusion I can come to is that it is a self imposed ban, no permission is necessary as long as you stick to the guidelines. So I gather the self imposed ban will be lifted on Roos Tor?

Looks like it is back to the Letterboxing club guidelines

Margaret
Brentorboxer

[RuberyBlue]

Perhaps UK reviewers could put a local (UK) escalation process in place with agreed time-lines for CO responses, archiving etc.

Do GAGB have a responsibility as holders of the definitive land owner agreements to escalate and progress?

It would be really useful if the Reviewers had access to 'Local Experts' who they can call upon in areas where the placing of caches can be problematical?

As for the adverse responses on the GSP forum - it takes allsorts

RB
KRO!

[baconbutty]

Thanks for that, Margaret. Not only on Dartmoor, but in other sites we have found geocaches which are in inappropriate places. I have sited a couple near churches, but would not put them in consecrated ground. It only really needs a little common sense to look around before siting a cache to see what is in the area. We look at it from a letterboxing perspective also and follow that code.

[Family_Moose]

Can you point us in the direction of the 'churches ban' rule.

Many thanks

Family_Moose

[Brentorboxer]

Can you point us in the direction of the 'churches ban' rule.

Many thanks

Family_Moose

See Follow the Arrow website.

[Happy Humphrey]

Caches on church property aren't banned. Indeed, they are often encouraged, in my experience, and quite rightly too. If carefully sited they can be of benefit to geocachers and to the church as well (which is why the clergy are so often keen to give permission).
The only new rule is that for geocaching.com, explicit permission must be shown to exist, thanks to some thoughtless people placing caches without using common sense.
As far as the complaints procedure; for geocaching.com all you have to do is e-mail the local reviewer with the details and leave him/her to look into it. They have a lot of caches to review and might not always realise (without a tipoff) that a cache is badly sited.

SSSI's are not necessarily ecologically sensitive sites either, but can (and often do) include roads, car parks, housing, litter and all the accoutrements of urban life. They are merely areas of particular interest to the scientist, which can mean almost anything (although many are of ecological significance). So there may or may not be reason to be especially careful about cache placement, and certainly the designation shouldn't preclude the placing of caches.

[agentmancuso]

Caches on church property aren't banned. Indeed, they are often encouraged, in my experience, and quite rightly too. If carefully sited they can be of benefit to geocachers and to the church as well (which is why the clergy are so often keen to give permission).
The only new rule is that for geocaching.com, explicit permission must be shown to exist, thanks to some thoughtless people placing caches without using common sense.
As far as the complaints procedure; for geocaching.com all you have to do is e-mail the local reviewer with the details and leave him/her to look into it. They have a lot of caches to review and might not always realise (without a tipoff) that a cache is badly sited.

SSSI's are not necessarily ecologically sensitive sites either, but can (and often do) include roads, car parks, housing, litter and all the accoutrements of urban life. They are merely areas of particular interest to the scientist, which can mean almost anything (although many are of ecological significance). So there may or may not be reason to be especially careful about cache placement, and certainly the designation shouldn't preclude the placing of caches.

All very sensible. The idea that caches could or should necessarily be banned in Church yards or SSSIs is absurd.

[DrDick&Vick]

Can you point us in the direction of the 'churches ban' rule.

Many thanks

Family_Moose

Churches and caching info

[Graculus]

<snip>
….and not a mention of SSSI, how strange, only conclusion I can come to is that it is a self imposed ban, no permission is necessary as long as you stick to the guidelines. So I gather the self imposed ban will be lifted on Roos Tor?

Self imposed ban on Roos Tor - in this case the 'self' you are refering to is a local geocacher who informed me through a reviewer note on a cache submitted for approval that the rangers had said the cache could not be placed on Roos Tor. The 'ban' was not made by me (the reviewer) but by the DNPA rangers themselves. So if you want the 'ban' on Roos Tor lifted then contact the rangers. I did notice that you'd said in another caching related forum - and I quote - I have been in contact with <name removed> he is the owner of the cache on <location removed> he says he originally wanted to put his <removed> cache on Roos Tor, but was refused by the reveiewer, he has not personally been refused by the rangers. Please note I have removed the cachers name and the bold is mine. This is interesting because the reviewer note I have on the cache says otherwise. So someone is being economical with the truth here......

Regarding the response from the DNPA about SSSI's. As they did not give specific locations for the areas they refer to: Sites should be avoided that are within rare bird nesting areas and on clitter slopes, and on other sensitive areas such as blanket bogs and mires I am not in a position to know where these sensitive areas are so will continue to to use the Natural England and MAGIC maps and consider any area 'sensitive' enough to be scheduled an SSSI as still requiring permission.

Finally in response to your comment and others about a 'complaints' procedure. There is a very satisfactory one already in place. In the first instance contact the reviewer who published the cache (for Dartmoor that is myself) and ask that the cache/location is investigated. If you don't think that the reviewer has handled the matter to your satisfaction or you think the reviewer has acted inapropriately then you can always contact Groundspeak (who own geocaching.com) and make a complaint to them......

Chris
Graculus - Volunteer Reviewer for geocaching.com

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Sometime ago I asked cachers on the forum not to put caches in church grounds, as I considered it not an appropriate place, I got a lot of negative replies. It is interesting to see caching in and around churches has been now banned!

Actually caches listed on Geocaching.com may be placed in Church Property or Graveyards with Permission. This has been in affect since July 7th 2008!

Caches in Graveyards [Church or Stand alone], A change of Reviewing Policy within the UK

The Post explains why the requirement for Proof of Permission was brought in. Since then I have personally published caches on such properties submitted by Reverends,and their spouses. I've just recently published a cache in a Municipal Grave Yard, with the full permission of the Manager of that Location!

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

[Happy Humphrey]

Regarding the response from the DNPA about SSSI's. As they did not give specific locations for the areas they refer to: Sites should be avoided that are within rare bird nesting areas and on clitter slopes, and on other sensitive areas such as blanket bogs and mires I am not in a position to know where these sensitive areas are so will continue to to use the Natural England and MAGIC maps and consider any area 'sensitive' enough to be scheduled an SSSI as still requiring permission.

Good post, and you seem to answer most of the queries. But on this specific point, it demonstrates the difficulty of reviewing caches now that the extra level of policing environmental issues has been added in to a reviewer's duties. Such things as rare bird nesting sites and clitter (scree/boulder) slopes may exist as much outside SSSIs as within. It all depends why the area was designated SSSI; this is not always to preserve sensitive areas. SSSIs are totally different from nature reserves.

Really, it's up to the reviewer to write to the local authority for any area in question and check whether public access to the cache site is compatible with the conservation status of that exact location.
Otherwise, as you say, your are not "in a position to know where these sensitive areas are".
Obviously, the exception is if there's a nature reserve or road or footpath at the cache location; then it's a no-brainer, but what if there isn't? SSSI status doesn't help at all.

The only other alternative is to allow the cache placer to tick a box assuring the reviewer that adequate permission is in place. This does have the disadvantage that certain rogues will tick the box even though they have never obtained permission for a cache that they know to require it. In my view, any problems should be referred to the cache owner and the reviewer should archive the cache immediately if the situation appears to warrant it, only reinstating it after receiving suitable assurances.

In my humble opinion, of course...