Memorials to the Deceased, change in Review Policy by GC's UK & Ireland Reviewers

[Brenin Tegeingl]

After considerable discussion between the UK & Ireland Reviewers in regards to concerns being raised by a number of community members, over Physical Containers placed on or near to War Memorials or Memorials to the Deceased.

We now moving forward require Proof of Permission, where a war memorial or other memorial to the dead is the focal point of a clearly defined precinct, plaza, memorial garden or like surrounding area. Physical caches or physical cache stages placed within that surrounding area require specific written permission of the relevant custodial authority

Definition of the "Surrounding Area

Any area specifically set aside for the Memorial, which is clearly defined and usually forming a Remembrance Garden/Area. So the area surrounding a War Memorial in a Town Square where a War Memorial is located would not fall within that definition. A example being the Cenotaph in London, which normally has traffic passing on either side of it.

This approach to Reviewing Caches located within the Precinct of Memorials to the Deceased,is exactly the same as for Church Yard/Cemeteries which has been in place for 2.25 years within the UK.

Caches in Such locations Published before the Date of this post have been Grandfathered In, subject to the usual rider. That of any Update of Coordinates, Is considered to have broken the Grandfathered In clause, and the new location if within the Precinct will then require Written Permission.

To avoid any confusion, We are NOT BANNING caches located within the Precincts of Memorial to the Deceased. Simply moving to a Proof of Permission to Publish

Deceangi

Can we ask why?

Some members have raised concern, well why not use the forum to gain a bigger picture?

I really do feel this needs an elaboration on the reasons, I therefore will not be thanking my mate Deci for this post!

I can see the point that these are sensitive areas, on the other hand I do see the point of taking people to them with consideration by the owner and finders for the sensitivity of these places.

It's not the new requirement that bothers me so much as the way this is done without consultation of the broader community.

I will also say I had the same concerns regarding the churchyard restriction and the way we (the GAGB) were "requested" (dictated to) that we should change our guidelines to suit a reviewers decision which we were not party to.

I will therefore not be "Thanking" for the OP.

[nobbynobbs]

I can see an increasing need for restrictions to be placed upon people placing caches, more people will mean more problems, simple statistics prove that.

The issue the reviewers have , I'm sure, is that they are unpaid and have better things to do than constantly argue and negotiate each and every cache in this sort of location and the locations of churches etc.
So I can understand the need for this new restriction but I would also say that has this been discussed online in the forums? or is it coming from nowhere as a surprise?

No discussion and yes I agree there should be some sort of control. I am sure if it had been discussed the action taken would be the one the majority went with.

Two minutes to post a forum thread or poll seeking opinions is obviously too much like hard work.


All the phone calls to the GAGB come to me. I receive one or two complaints about cache placements a month. Not a single call about these (opens the flood gates).

[Simply Paul]

While I understand the sensitivity of caching near a war memorial (at least those of the 20th century. I don't think people are so worried about earlier conflicts..?), in my experience folk are far more upset by caches on dog mess bins and the public more concerned by caches near children's playgrounds. Can I ask if these locations are under 'blanket proof of permission required' review too? If not I suggest they're looked into...

On a similar note, I've used a drain beside a memorial to the fallen of the Battle of Chalgrove, which took place early in the Civil War (1642), to hide a cache in the past (It's since been archived) - In the picture below would the whole green (actually a triangular road junction island) be classed as the memorial, only the area within the fence (in which case would a micro on the fence be ok or not) or is the Civil War long enough ago not to be an issue - assuming there was no fence and a handy gap below the monument? (There isn't, but there could be.)



Not trying to cause trouble, just looking for extra clarity. Thank you.

[Jacaru]

With many younger caches out there, it is a shame that the proof of permission on caches at memorials has been put in place. Although it is quite right that proof is obtained for parks and other areas, I do feel that a war memorial is a public place. I accept that they are sensitive areas, however, a cache may be the only time that a young cacher may visit such a place. Too often war memorials are seen as just that funny little statue thing with some names on. A caching visitor may just read the names and have a few minutes to ponder and remember just what those men and women did for this country. I am sure that cachers are not going to cause any problems whilst visiting such a site, unlike those lager/vodka soaked youngsters who use them as gathering areas to drink/smoke and generally cause a nuisance.

[Maple Leaf]

They could be set up as multi or puzzle caches with a decent size cache container slightly further away.

That way people are more likely to spend a few minutes there and actually read the memorial .... rather than just grab a micro/nano and dash off.

And also prevents an awkward search under prying eyes in a public area.