Groundspeak Forums: Sidetracked Series - caches in or near railway stations - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Sidetracked Series - caches in or near railway stations Change to placement of these caches

#1 User is offline   Graculus 

  • Volunteer Reviewer for the UK
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 812
  • Joined: 28-July 08

Posted 03 September 2008 - 05:00 AM

You are aware that 'SideTracked - London St. Pancras' was recently archived as a result of possible security issues. In view of this the UK reviewing team have looked at the idea of the 'Sidetracked' series and have decided that all future caches placed in or near railway stations or railway property must be placed with permission of the railway authorities or placed outside the boundaries of the railway station and grounds. When listing a cache for publication such permission must be shown on the listing including who it was obtained from (this should be added as a log which will be hidden when published) or it made clear the cache is outside the station boundary .

Existing caches will be considered 'grandfathered in' will not need to be changed retroactively. However if any cache owners wish to re-assess any caches they have to either get permission or move them will be happy to help.

We will be asking GAGB if the guidelines can be updated to include this information.

We are sure you'll understand the reasons for this change.

Graculus
UK Reviewing Team

#2 User is offline   mongoose39uk 

  • Think Drink
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2219
  • Joined: 26-October 03

Posted 03 September 2008 - 05:43 AM

View PostGraculus, on Sep 3 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

snip

Existing caches will be considered 'grandfathered in' will not need to be changed retroactively. However if any cache owners wish to re-assess any caches they have to either get permission or move them will be happy to help.

We will be asking GAGB if the guidelines can be updated to include this information.

We are sure you'll understand the reasons for this change.

Graculus
UK Reviewing Team


The GAGB Guidelines are here Guidelines

I bring your attention to point 4 When placing a cache, the onus is on the placer to seek the permission of the landowner. .

Before we start changing well established guidelines is it possible to seek the opinions of the geocaching community?

Edited to say..

There is a poll function on the GAGB forum Here , perhaps this would be a good use of it.

The GAGB is after all there to represent Geocachers, seems a shame to have this function and not use it.

This post has been edited by mongoose39uk: 03 September 2008 - 05:50 AM


#3 User is offline   purple_pineapple 

  • Only purple ones round here...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1651
  • Joined: 27-May 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 06:24 AM

View Postmongoose39uk, on Sep 3 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

View PostGraculus, on Sep 3 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

snip

Existing caches will be considered 'grandfathered in' will not need to be changed retroactively. However if any cache owners wish to re-assess any caches they have to either get permission or move them will be happy to help.

We will be asking GAGB if the guidelines can be updated to include this information.

We are sure you'll understand the reasons for this change.

Graculus
UK Reviewing Team


The GAGB Guidelines are here Guidelines

I bring your attention to point 4 When placing a cache, the onus is on the placer to seek the permission of the landowner. .

Before we start changing well established guidelines is it possible to seek the opinions of the geocaching community?

Edited to say..

There is a poll function on the GAGB forum Here , perhaps this would be a good use of it.

The GAGB is after all there to represent Geocachers, seems a shame to have this function and not use it.


isn't the onus STILL on the cache placer - simply that there is MORE onus now?! This seems to be very similar to National Trust caches - in as much as direct proof is now needed, rather than the assumption that all caches are placed with permission.

Doesn't bother me - I don't own any sidetracked caches! I'm more interested in some of the other archived London caches... hint hint...!

#4 User is offline   mongoose39uk 

  • Think Drink
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2219
  • Joined: 26-October 03

Posted 03 September 2008 - 06:37 AM

View Postpurple_pineapple, on Sep 3 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

View Postmongoose39uk, on Sep 3 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

View PostGraculus, on Sep 3 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

snip

Existing caches will be considered 'grandfathered in' will not need to be changed retroactively. However if any cache owners wish to re-assess any caches they have to either get permission or move them will be happy to help.

We will be asking GAGB if the guidelines can be updated to include this information.

We are sure you'll understand the reasons for this change.

Graculus
UK Reviewing Team


The GAGB Guidelines are here Guidelines

I bring your attention to point 4 When placing a cache, the onus is on the placer to seek the permission of the landowner. .

Before we start changing well established guidelines is it possible to seek the opinions of the geocaching community?

Edited to say..

There is a poll function on the GAGB forum Here , perhaps this would be a good use of it.

The GAGB is after all there to represent Geocachers, seems a shame to have this function and not use it.


isn't the onus STILL on the cache placer - simply that there is MORE onus now?! This seems to be very similar to National Trust caches - in as much as direct proof is now needed, rather than the assumption that all caches are placed with permission.

Doesn't bother me - I don't own any sidetracked caches! I'm more interested in some of the other archived London caches... hint hint...!



Indeed, and though proof of permission for SSSI, National Trust etc. has been required by the reviewers for a considerable time, we have not changed the guidelines for those. While I fully support the need to have this confirmed permission, I see no need myself for the GAGB to change its guidelines at this time.

I invite the use of the poll facility to seek a consensus on this.

I am however posting on my own behalf, as a committee we have not had the opportunity to discuss this.

#5 User is offline   mongoose39uk 

  • Think Drink
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2219
  • Joined: 26-October 03

Posted 03 September 2008 - 06:38 AM

Double Post ;)

This post has been edited by mongoose39uk: 03 September 2008 - 06:38 AM


#6 User is offline   purple_pineapple 

  • Only purple ones round here...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1651
  • Joined: 27-May 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 06:51 AM

ahh, sorry tony - I see what ur saying! don't mind me! ;)

#7 User is offline   uktim 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 408
  • Joined: 11-March 02

Posted 03 September 2008 - 07:03 AM

View Postmongoose39uk, on Sep 3 2008, 06:37 AM, said:

View Postpurple_pineapple, on Sep 3 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

View Postmongoose39uk, on Sep 3 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

View PostGraculus, on Sep 3 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

snip

Existing caches will be considered 'grandfathered in' will not need to be changed retroactively. However if any cache owners wish to re-assess any caches they have to either get permission or move them will be happy to help.

We will be asking GAGB if the guidelines can be updated to include this information.

We are sure you'll understand the reasons for this change.

Graculus
UK Reviewing Team


The GAGB Guidelines are here Guidelines

I bring your attention to point 4 When placing a cache, the onus is on the placer to seek the permission of the landowner. .

Before we start changing well established guidelines is it possible to seek the opinions of the geocaching community?

Edited to say..

There is a poll function on the GAGB forum Here , perhaps this would be a good use of it.

The GAGB is after all there to represent Geocachers, seems a shame to have this function and not use it.


isn't the onus STILL on the cache placer - simply that there is MORE onus now?! This seems to be very similar to National Trust caches - in as much as direct proof is now needed, rather than the assumption that all caches are placed with permission.

Doesn't bother me - I don't own any sidetracked caches! I'm more interested in some of the other archived London caches... hint hint...!



Indeed, and though proof of permission for SSSI, National Trust etc. has been required by the reviewers for a considerable time, we have not changed the guidelines for those. While I fully support the need to have this confirmed permission, I see no need myself for the GAGB to change its guidelines at this time.

I invite the use of the poll facility to seek a consensus on this.

I am however posting on my own behalf, as a committee we have not had the opportunity to discuss this.


Surely the guidleines are there to offer guidance. If guidance is offered it should be as accurate as possible.

Does it really need a poll before such useful and factual information is added?

#8 User is offline   jerryo 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 685
  • Joined: 14-January 06

Posted 03 September 2008 - 07:08 AM

View Postuktim, on Sep 3 2008, 04:03 PM, said:

View Postmongoose39uk, on Sep 3 2008, 06:37 AM, said:

View Postpurple_pineapple, on Sep 3 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

View Postmongoose39uk, on Sep 3 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

View PostGraculus, on Sep 3 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

snip

Existing caches will be considered 'grandfathered in' will not need to be changed retroactively. However if any cache owners wish to re-assess any caches they have to either get permission or move them will be happy to help.

We will be asking GAGB if the guidelines can be updated to include this information.

We are sure you'll understand the reasons for this change.

Graculus
UK Reviewing Team


The GAGB Guidelines are here Guidelines

I bring your attention to point 4 When placing a cache, the onus is on the placer to seek the permission of the landowner. .

Before we start changing well established guidelines is it possible to seek the opinions of the geocaching community?

Edited to say..

There is a poll function on the GAGB forum Here , perhaps this would be a good use of it.

The GAGB is after all there to represent Geocachers, seems a shame to have this function and not use it.


isn't the onus STILL on the cache placer - simply that there is MORE onus now?! This seems to be very similar to National Trust caches - in as much as direct proof is now needed, rather than the assumption that all caches are placed with permission.

Doesn't bother me - I don't own any sidetracked caches! I'm more interested in some of the other archived London caches... hint hint...!



Indeed, and though proof of permission for SSSI, National Trust etc. has been required by the reviewers for a considerable time, we have not changed the guidelines for those. While I fully support the need to have this confirmed permission, I see no need myself for the GAGB to change its guidelines at this time.

I invite the use of the poll facility to seek a consensus on this.

I am however posting on my own behalf, as a committee we have not had the opportunity to discuss this.


Surely the guidleines are there to offer guidance. If guidance is offered it should be as accurate as possible.

Does it really need a poll before such useful and factual information is added?

What's useful about information that's going to be, as Graculus said added as a log which will be hidden when published?

#9 User is offline   uktim 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 408
  • Joined: 11-March 02

Posted 03 September 2008 - 07:22 AM

View Postjerryo, on Sep 3 2008, 07:08 AM, said:

What's useful about information that's going to be, as Graculus said added as a log which will be hidden when published?


If the guidance tells the person placing the cache that they need to provide this information, it will prevent the reviewer having to waste time chasing the info and speed up the publishing of the cache. If cachers know they need this permission before a cache can be published it may also save the the wasted time and disappointment of a cache that can't be published if permission can't be gained.

Guidance should be there to help the process and must be as full and factually complete as possible. It really shouldn't need a poll on which facts to include or exclude IMO.

#10 User is offline   purple_pineapple 

  • Only purple ones round here...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1651
  • Joined: 27-May 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 07:27 AM

View Postuktim, on Sep 3 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

View Postjerryo, on Sep 3 2008, 07:08 AM, said:

What's useful about information that's going to be, as Graculus said added as a log which will be hidden when published?


If the guidance tells the person placing the cache that they need to provide this information, it will prevent the reviewer having to waste time chasing the info and speed up the publishing of the cache. If cachers know they need this permission before a cache can be published it may also save the the wasted time and disappointment of a cache that can't be published if permission can't be gained.

Guidance should be there to help the process and must be as full and factually complete as possible. It really shouldn't need a poll on which facts to include or exclude IMO.


on a practical note, i wonder how many placers read the GAGB guidelines first anyway. I suspect not many, and most of those that do are forum regulars who will now be aware of the new requirements.

Would it be useful for current sidetracked owners to place a brief note in their current description, stating that future sidetracked caches will need permission. Maybe in the paragraph about what sidetracked caches are..?

just a thought!

#11 User is offline   Sensei TSKC 

  • Sensei TSKC
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1570
  • Joined: 02-March 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 07:27 AM

View Postjerryo, on Sep 3 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

What's useful about information that's going to be, as Graculus said added as a log which will be hidden when published?

Useful in asmuchas it is evidence to prove or disprove the cache owner actual got permission should there be an issue at a later date.

Hidden because cachers looking for the cache do not need this information.

Just my opinion/thoughts

Oss!

#12 User is offline   Jaz666 

  • iCache, Do You?
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 808
  • Joined: 16-July 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 07:38 AM

View PostGraculus, on Sep 3 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

You are aware that 'SideTracked - London St. Pancras' was recently archived as a result of possible security issues. In view of this the UK reviewing team have looked at the idea of the 'Sidetracked' series and have decided that all future caches placed in or near railway stations or railway property must be placed with permission of the railway authorities or placed outside the boundaries of the railway station and grounds. When listing a cache for publication such permission must be shown on the listing including who it was obtained from (this should be added as a log which will be hidden when published) or it made clear the cache is outside the station boundary .


Well done to the reviewing team for tackling a sensitive issue.

As a cacher, I find searching for caches in populated places such as stations occasionally uncomfortable - knowing a cache has permission might make me inclined to seek out such caches more often.

#13 User is offline   Happy Humphrey 

  • Official Groundspeak Cacher of the Year, 1999.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3571
  • Joined: 17-January 04

Posted 03 September 2008 - 08:08 AM

View PostJaz666, on Sep 3 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

As a cacher, I find searching for caches in populated places such as stations occasionally uncomfortable - knowing a cache has permission might make me inclined to seek out such caches more often.

I understand what you mean, but can't see that it will make any difference to a cache search. If the police or railway security staff see someone acting suspiciously then they'll "have a word". They would be very unlikely to know (or care) about the cache permission.

I don't know what the incident at St. Pancras was exactly: the reviewers are keen to keep it under wraps, but it appears to have been a bomb scare of some sort related to a geocache and again I suspect that specific permission would have made no difference at the time.

I see it as protection for Groundspeak: should there be a problem that turns in their direction then they can say that permission was granted by the stationmaster (or whoever). Even if it becomes apparent that permission was granted by someone without authority, or if the official has left, they can demonstrate that every effort was made to ensure that the cache was as legal as possible.

#14 User is offline   dibbler69 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 11-February 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 08:44 AM

On a lighter note!! I think where my sidetracked cache is they would love the attention of a scare. Its near a heritage railway. The publicity would do them some good ;)

#15 User is offline   Graculus 

  • Volunteer Reviewer for the UK
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 812
  • Joined: 28-July 08

Posted 03 September 2008 - 08:46 AM

View Postjerryo, on Sep 3 2008, 04:08 PM, said:

What's useful about information that's going to be, as Graculus said added as a log which will be hidden when published?


To clarify this point: any logs on a cache page before it is published are automatically archived so they cannot be seen other than by the owner and reviewers. They remain on the page though as a reference. We use them them as a history of the cache publication so that relevant information - such as clarification of a point with the owner or permission details are there.

Graculus

#16 User is offline   wigglesworth 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 355
  • Joined: 05-November 03

Posted 03 September 2008 - 09:58 AM

Well done - I prefer to be certain that permission has been granted. Our caches on private land include a note in the description stating something like " thanks to ... who supported the placement of the log"

Extracted from other Groundspeak forum - At the risk of sounding repetitive - The real issue is not one of permission. The issue is to understand whether it is appropriate to be looking on private property for a particular cache. Here's the distinction: I know that wherever you've hidden your cache, you have permission (it's in the rules). But if my GPSr tells me the cache is on private property, I'm going to be wondering if I've made some mistake and I'll be hesitant to actually venture on the property to search. If you've told me in the description that it is in fact on private property, I'll be much more comfortable in going there. That's all there really is to it. It will just help me to know I'm making the right decision in venturing there.

#17 User is offline   JimJinks 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 19-March 06

Posted 04 September 2008 - 12:21 AM

Just done a quick count up of the 100+ ones I've done

55% inside station/in car park
45% outside the station

So it certainly is possible to hide them under the new rules.

Remember also there many caches near/on railway stations that are not part of the "SideTracked" series.

Motorway Mayhems are not on the junctions themselves, but nearby, the same applies here.

#18 User is offline   FantasticCat 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18-August 07

Posted 04 September 2008 - 01:10 AM

This seems very good news to me. This dreadful series seems to grow and grow and now hopefully will have the clamps put on it as permission should be awkward to get. Actually the offending cache in question, St Pancras would be one of a small number that held any interest to me (yes I know people's interests differ and there are lots of people who are very interested in drab surburban stations). I like caching in London but it doesn't surprise me that concerns have been raised/issues have occured. Any chance of requiring permission for the supermarket series also (or indeed banning them on the grounds of commerciality) Groundspeak?

#19 User is offline   purple_pineapple 

  • Only purple ones round here...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1651
  • Joined: 27-May 05

Posted 04 September 2008 - 01:39 AM

View PostFantasticCat, on Sep 4 2008, 10:10 AM, said:

This seems very good news to me. This dreadful series seems to grow and grow and now hopefully will have the clamps put on it as permission should be awkward to get. Actually the offending cache in question, St Pancras would be one of a small number that held any interest to me (yes I know people's interests differ and there are lots of people who are very interested in drab surburban stations). I like caching in London but it doesn't surprise me that concerns have been raised/issues have occured. Any chance of requiring permission for the supermarket series also (or indeed banning them on the grounds of commerciality) Groundspeak?


each to their own, as is frequently said - one person's dreadful series is another persons fun series...

i'm not aware of a supermarket series, but if its the off your trolley series you mean, I haven't ever seen one that mentions the name of a supermarket - and we actually find them quite useful when we are out of area, as it helps to pinpoint somewhere to get food, and somewhere to throw our CITO and own rubbish away, which I believe is the point...

#20 User is offline   Gushoneybun 

  • So many caches so little time!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1101
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 04 September 2008 - 02:08 AM

View PostFantasticCat, on Sep 4 2008, 10:10 AM, said:

This seems very good news to me. This dreadful series seems to grow and grow and now hopefully will have the clamps put on it as permission should be awkward to get. Actually the offending cache in question, St Pancras would be one of a small number that held any interest to me (yes I know people's interests differ and there are lots of people who are very interested in drab surburban stations). I like caching in London but it doesn't surprise me that concerns have been raised/issues have occured. Any chance of requiring permission for the supermarket series also (or indeed banning them on the grounds of commerciality) Groundspeak?




It is each to their own, if you do not want to see/do any of them stick them on your ignore list. We have done some of both series, and as purple_pineapple said the Off Yer Trolleys are great when needing food etc when out of area. I travel a lot so the Motorway Mayhems are also good for making me take a break from driving when whizzing crawling around our motorway network. :laughing: As with any cache some are in silly places and I have walked away from them on occasions rather than draw attention to myself/the cache. An email to the owner about dodgy locations normally seems to get them moved if needed. B)

#21 User is offline   MisterBen 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 04 September 2008 - 03:19 AM

View PostGraculus, on Sep 3 2008, 05:00 AM, said:

You are aware that 'SideTracked - London St. Pancras' was recently archived as a result of possible security issues. In view of this the UK reviewing team have looked at the idea of the 'Sidetracked' series and have decided that all future caches placed in or near railway stations or railway property must be placed with permission of the railway authorities or placed outside the boundaries of the railway station and grounds. When listing a cache for publication such permission must be shown on the listing including who it was obtained from (this should be added as a log which will be hidden when published) or it made clear the cache is outside the station boundary .


That does make sense although that particular cache was on the opposite side of the road to the station, attached to a fence on land belonging to (I think) the British Library, so it would not have fallen foul of those rules.

#22 User is offline   bikermel76 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 11-March 07

Posted 04 September 2008 - 10:24 AM

View Postpurple_pineapple, on Sep 3 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

Would it be useful for current sidetracked owners to place a brief note in their current description, stating that future sidetracked caches will need permission. Maybe in the paragraph about what sidetracked caches are..?


Nice thought, but many already don't use the suggested text we give on the website (and that was used in the very first listing) The trouble is once one person fails to copy the text, if the next person copies their text, with minor changes, you soon end up with Chinese whispers! B)

I'll be updating the 'suggested' text as well as noting in our 'Get Involved' section that if you choose to hide WITHIN the station you will need to provide proof of permission!

+ LMAO @ dibbler :laughing:

Interesting perspective from a rail employee/SideTracked hider also here

(sorry FantasticCat, looks like there will still be more, already 338 hides disagree with you B) )

bikermel76 - series creator, yep, now you all know who to hate B)

#23 User is offline   The Cache Hoppers 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 04 September 2008 - 10:49 AM

View Postbikermel76, on Sep 4 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

View Postpurple_pineapple, on Sep 3 2008, 07:27 AM, said:

Would it be useful for current sidetracked owners to place a brief note in their current description, stating that future sidetracked caches will need permission. Maybe in the paragraph about what sidetracked caches are..?


Nice thought, but many already don't use the suggested text we give on the website (and that was used in the very first listing) The trouble is once one person fails to copy the text, if the next person copies their text, with minor changes, you soon end up with Chinese whispers! :(

I'll be updating the 'suggested' text as well as noting in our 'Get Involved' section that if you choose to hide WITHIN the station you will need to provide proof of permission!

+ LMAO @ dibbler :lol:

Interesting perspective from a rail employee/SideTracked hider also here

(sorry FantasticCat, looks like there will still be more, already 338 hides disagree with you ;) )

bikermel76 - series creator, yep, now you all know who to hate :P

Good to see you back on the forums bikermel76 - and well done on being proactive in sorting the suggested text. Sort the wheat from the chaff, i.e., ignore the cynics and go with the flow :)

Edited for cr*ppy spelling :)

This post has been edited by The Cache Hoppers: 04 September 2008 - 10:52 AM


#24 User is offline   siliconwombat 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 23-April 06

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:02 PM

Only my opinion but....

As all caches require permission already, isnt this a completely pointless thread?

Now onto...

View PostFantasticCat, on Sep 4 2008, 01:10 AM, said:

This seems very good news to me. This dreadful series seems to grow and grow and now hopefully will have the clamps put on it as permission should be awkward to get. Actually the offending cache in question, St Pancras would be one of a small number that held any interest to me (yes I know people's interests differ and there are lots of people who are very interested in drab surburban stations). I like caching in London but it doesn't surprise me that concerns have been raised/issues have occured. Any chance of requiring permission for the supermarket series also (or indeed banning them on the grounds of commerciality) Groundspeak?


What a narrowminded point of view. If we all thought like you caching would have died a long time ago. Whose to say that a series placed along a 'navigation' (aka a canal) would be any better. A lot of the canals Ive come across are fetid cesspools and not conducive to a 'pleasant series of caches'. Now Im sure yours is lovely and I hope you continue to get permission for your cache hides so that it can grow and grow...

#25 User is offline   FantasticCat 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18-August 07

Posted 07 September 2008 - 12:45 AM

These series did not exist for the first 5 years of caching. I wasn't aware that caching was dying out and these series came along to save the hobby. Still thanks very much for the personal attack.

#26 User is offline   siliconwombat 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 23-April 06

Posted 07 September 2008 - 12:59 PM

Me thinks you missed the point.... Anytime by the way

#27 User is offline   mandarin 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 20-July 08

Posted 07 September 2008 - 01:44 PM

This thread is about the specific permission requirements needed for new Sidetracked caches. Please keep on topic.

Thank you.

mandarin

#28 User is offline   Dorsetgal & GeoDog 

  • Cache Retrievers
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2572
  • Joined: 15-August 05

Posted 07 September 2008 - 02:10 PM

View PostThe Cache Hoppers, on Sep 4 2008, 07:49 PM, said:


Good to see you back on the forums bikermel76 - and well done on being proactive in sorting the suggested text. Sort the wheat from the chaff, i.e., ignore the cynics and go with the flow :cry:




Well said Liane, I couldn't agree more. I have only done a few in this series, but it does serve its purpose very well for those of us who frequently use public transport, and for me, it certainly brightens up the day after a dull meeting or whatever to find a cache at the station on the way home.

I haven't set one myself yet, although I did help someone else set one and was scouting to set one yesterday ... whilst doing so we noticed the pages had been updated pdq. Have my eyes set on one of those uber sexy sidetracked coins that are in the pipeline! :ph34r:

#29 User is offline   Primitive Person 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 08-July 07

Posted 08 September 2008 - 01:40 AM

All good points from *most* people here! I too liked SideTracked caches, as I love trains, use them a lot, and also work in the industry. So far, I've just done a few and haven't seen any that have caused real concern, but it's just a matter of common sense. I would strongly suggest that you do NOT place any caches - SideTracked or otherwise - actually on a railway station itself, permission or no permission. However well-hidden it might be, or however quiet the station is, it could be found by a customer or employee who has no idea what it is and it could cause massive disruption. I'd stick to locations immediately outside, where the cache would be unlikely to cause any alarm.

Personally, I've hidden one SideTracked cache, which is just beyond the entrance to the car park, which I think is close enough to qualify and far enough away to prevent unnecessary alarm.

Please remember that anyone seen lurking around for no apparent reason on or about the railway is also likely to arouse suspicion.

Lee

#30 User is offline   Team Sieni 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 08-August 04

Posted 08 September 2008 - 06:20 AM

Is there a published list of places that have these or similar requirements? Railway stations (this thread) Graveyards ; "SSSI, National Trust etc." (mentioned above) Forestry Commission (I think I've read?) - ie places where reviewers require evidence of permission, rather than assuming that the hider has obtained it.

As an aside, I'm generally happier doing a cache that actually says something like "thanks to xyz for permission to place this cache" on the cache page, as I'm probably less likely to stray where I shouldn't be - so if you do have permission - don't be shy about it.

#31 User is offline   Happy Humphrey 

  • Official Groundspeak Cacher of the Year, 1999.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3571
  • Joined: 17-January 04

Posted 08 September 2008 - 07:49 AM

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

Please remember that anyone seen lurking around for no apparent reason on or about the railway is also likely to arouse suspicion.

There's a guideline that disallows caches within 150ft of a railway track, although this hasn't been strictly applied in the UK (AFAIK). As we are clearly now moving into a "red alert" situation it may be time to apply this to new and existing caches, at least in the London area where it seems that we are at an emergency level (I'm staying well away from that particular city: I've already revised my plans for this week!). :) :D At least, if you realise that the cache you're seeking is just around the corner from a railway line, it might be wise to post a SBA and keep clear of the cache altogether. :rolleyes:

The US has apparently had a big problem in the last few years with bombs under bridges and in other strategic locations, as caches found in such places are often quickly removed. That might be the next stage here?

#32 User is offline   Primitive Person 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 08-July 07

Posted 08 September 2008 - 09:18 AM

View PostHappy Humphrey, on Sep 8 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

Please remember that anyone seen lurking around for no apparent reason on or about the railway is also likely to arouse suspicion.

There's a guideline that disallows caches within 150ft of a railway track, although this hasn't been strictly applied in the UK (AFAIK). As we are clearly now moving into a "red alert" situation it may be time to apply this to new and existing caches, at least in the London area where it seems that we are at an emergency level (I'm staying well away from that particular city: I've already revised my plans for this week!). :rolleyes: :D At least, if you realise that the cache you're seeking is just around the corner from a railway line, it might be wise to post a SBA and keep clear of the cache altogether. :)

The US has apparently had a big problem in the last few years with bombs under bridges and in other strategic locations, as caches found in such places are often quickly removed. That might be the next stage here?


I think the 150ft-from-railway-lines rule doesn't need to apply in the UK, because all railway lines (at least away from stations) are securely fenced and only the suicidally idiotic will manage to get on to them. In the US, and many European countries, there are no lineside fences at all, making railway safety an entirely different matter.

Here, I don't think railways need to be any different to roads - in fact, the fencing makes them safer.

I think your view of the security situation in London is needlessly alarmist and knee-jerky, and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation at all. I live here, and just get on with my life. There are plenty of caches in London and they're not a security risk at all, if placed sensibly. The overwhelming majority of SideTracked caches are placed and maintained sensibly and I think it's a good series.

As I stated earlier, I work in the rail industry and know it inside out. It's a personal view and not that of my employer, but I feel I can speak with some expertise on this subject. I can't give permission, but if anyone wants advice on placing SideTracked caches, please get in touch.

Lee

#33 User is offline   Primitive Person 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 08-July 07

Posted 08 September 2008 - 09:19 AM

View PostHappy Humphrey, on Sep 8 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

Please remember that anyone seen lurking around for no apparent reason on or about the railway is also likely to arouse suspicion.

There's a guideline that disallows caches within 150ft of a railway track, although this hasn't been strictly applied in the UK (AFAIK). As we are clearly now moving into a "red alert" situation it may be time to apply this to new and existing caches, at least in the London area where it seems that we are at an emergency level (I'm staying well away from that particular city: I've already revised my plans for this week!). :rolleyes: :D At least, if you realise that the cache you're seeking is just around the corner from a railway line, it might be wise to post a SBA and keep clear of the cache altogether. :)

The US has apparently had a big problem in the last few years with bombs under bridges and in other strategic locations, as caches found in such places are often quickly removed. That might be the next stage here?


I think the 150ft-from-railway-lines rule doesn't need to apply in the UK, because all railway lines (at least away from stations) are securely fenced and only the suicidally idiotic will manage to get on to them. In the US, and many European countries, there are no lineside fences at all, making railway safety an entirely different matter.

Here, I don't think railways need to be any different to roads - in fact, the fencing makes them safer.

I think your view of the security situation in London is needlessly alarmist and knee-jerky, and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation at all. I live here, and just get on with my life. There are plenty of caches in London and they're not a security risk at all, if placed sensibly. The overwhelming majority of SideTracked caches are placed and maintained sensibly and I think it's a good series.

As I stated earlier, I work in the rail industry and know it inside out. It's a personal view and not that of my employer, but I feel I can speak with some expertise on this subject. I can't give permission, but if anyone wants advice on placing SideTracked caches, please get in touch.

Lee

#34 User is offline   Deceangi 

  • Reviewer with the BIG STICK, trackable of course
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1573
  • Joined: 14-May 06

Posted 08 September 2008 - 09:46 AM

the situation regarding Railways in the US is due to the fact that the Railway Company own the land 150ft either side of the tracks. This area is subject to a No Trespass law. One cache placed within this tract resulted in a cacher being taken to court for Trespass after being detained whilst searching for the cache. It was after this incident that the railway guideline was brought in.

In the case of the UK, we are reacting to concerns raised by the Authorities, that caches in or on Railway property might trip off a Security Alert.

A list of Landowner Agreements for the UK can be seen at GLAD-GAGB Landowners Agreement Database

Local Guidelines used by the UK Reviewers can be seen at GAGB Guidelines

Specific Areas requiring Proof of Permission before Publication are

SSSI's
Nature Reserves
Forestry Commision
National Trust
Church/Graveyards
Railway Company Property
plus any land owner agreement which requires permission be obtained before publication

#35 User is offline   martlakes 

  • Shield Bug
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 370
  • Joined: 31-March 05

Posted 08 September 2008 - 10:00 AM

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 10:40 AM, said:


Please remember that anyone seen lurking around for no apparent reason on or about the railway is also likely to arouse suspicion.


If other stations are like my local ones they seem to have the most intensive CCTV coverage anywhere. Just entering my station via the underpass and going onto the platform means I pass about 6 cameras, and it's only about 100ft! Seems a tad over the top.

#36 User is offline   keehotee 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3017
  • Joined: 04-February 04

Posted 08 September 2008 - 10:17 AM

View Postmartlakes, on Sep 8 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 10:40 AM, said:


Please remember that anyone seen lurking around for no apparent reason on or about the railway is also likely to arouse suspicion.


If other stations are like my local ones they seem to have the most intensive CCTV coverage anywhere. Just entering my station via the underpass and going onto the platform means I pass about 6 cameras, and it's only about 100ft! Seems a tad over the top.


The cameras are probably more to do with the security of users, who might be at an unmanned station late at night, than with protecting railway property.

#37 User is offline   purple_pineapple 

  • Only purple ones round here...
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1651
  • Joined: 27-May 05

Posted 08 September 2008 - 10:19 AM

View Postmartlakes, on Sep 8 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 10:40 AM, said:


Please remember that anyone seen lurking around for no apparent reason on or about the railway is also likely to arouse suspicion.


If other stations are like my local ones they seem to have the most intensive CCTV coverage anywhere. Just entering my station via the underpass and going onto the platform means I pass about 6 cameras, and it's only about 100ft! Seems a tad over the top.


I would say a CCTV camera is the ideal place to fix a magnetic micro sidetracked cache! :D :rolleyes:

#38 User is offline   Bear and Ragged 

  • *.*
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6775
  • Joined: 20-August 05

Posted 08 September 2008 - 10:51 AM

Quote

I would say a CCTV camera is the ideal place to fix a magnetic micro sidetracked cache! biggrin.gif wink.gif


So long as you have written permission, to show the reviewer... :D

#39 User is offline   Team Sieni 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 08-August 04

Posted 08 September 2008 - 11:16 AM

View PostDeceangi, on Sep 8 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Specific Areas requiring Proof of Permission before Publication are [ ... ]

Thanks

#40 User is offline   Happy Humphrey 

  • Official Groundspeak Cacher of the Year, 1999.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3571
  • Joined: 17-January 04

Posted 09 September 2008 - 01:03 AM

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

I think the 150ft-from-railway-lines rule doesn't need to apply in the UK, because all railway lines (at least away from stations) are securely fenced and only the suicidally idiotic will manage to get on to them. In the US, and many European countries, there are no lineside fences at all, making railway safety an entirely different matter.

Here, I don't think railways need to be any different to roads - in fact, the fencing makes them safer.

I think that UK reviewers have tended to ignore this guideline, although in the current circumstances I'm not so sure that they are allowed to. I understand what you're saying, even though there are many unattended level crossings around the country that might have the same safety concerns. As you say, roads are a lot more dangerous so I don't think that it's really a safety issue anyway.

View PostPrimitive Person, on Sep 8 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

I think your view of the security situation in London is needlessly alarmist and knee-jerky, and doesn't reflect the reality of the situation at all. I live here, and just get on with my life. There are plenty of caches in London and they're not a security risk at all, if placed sensibly. The overwhelming majority of SideTracked caches are placed and maintained sensibly and I think it's a good series.

As I stated earlier, I work in the rail industry and know it inside out. It's a personal view and not that of my employer, but I feel I can speak with some expertise on this subject. I can't give permission, but if anyone wants advice on placing SideTracked caches, please get in touch.

Lee

I'm not saying that such caches are actually a security risk. But there seems to have been a recent increase in security activity in London, illustrated by the sudden interest in these caches near railway stations. Last year we were told that London caches were OK as long as they were clearly labelled. Now things have changed and even caches some distance from the station are under scrutiny. I get the impression that even hanging around minding your own business could lead to problems with the police. You might be used to it: but to an outsider that's very worrying, and it appears that the risk level is getting higher all the time. So perhaps you can understand that if it's not absolutely necessary to visit London at the moment then it appears better to postpone any caching and perhaps even any visit at all.

Outside London, I agree that anyone considering placing a Sidetracked cache would be wise to seek your valuable advice as well as gaining the required permission. Inside and around London I'd advise people to not bother even trying to set one up, permission or not.

#41 User is offline   Primitive Person 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 292
  • Joined: 08-July 07

Posted 09 September 2008 - 01:36 AM

View PostHappy Humphrey, on Sep 9 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

But there seems to have been a recent increase in security activity in London...I get the impression that even hanging around minding your own business could lead to problems with the police. You might be used to it: but to an outsider that's very worrying, and it appears that the risk level is getting higher all the time. So perhaps you can understand that if it's not absolutely necessary to visit London at the moment then it appears better to postpone any caching and perhaps even any visit at all.


I completely disagree. I spend vast amounts of my time in central London, doing things like caching, travelling, sightseeing, and taking photos, and I have NEVER been approached by the police. The police do a difficult job with considerable skill and 99.9% of law-abiding people are left to get on with their business. If you are approached by the police, and you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. I agree that it's not pleasant being hassled when you're not doing anything wrong, but we're a long way off being some sort of terror-gripped police state and I think you present a very negative picture with little justification.

View PostHappy Humphrey, on Sep 9 2008, 01:03 AM, said:

Outside London, I agree that anyone considering placing a Sidetracked cache would be wise to seek your valuable advice as well as gaining the required permission. Inside and around London I'd advise people to not bother even trying to set one up, permission or not.


Again, I disagree. OK, it might not be a good idea to place one very close to one of the major railway stations, but there are plenty of smaller ones with good hide locations close to the station which can be used with no problems at all. It's just a common-sense approach.

My own personal opinion is that the government has massively over-hyped the risk of terrorist activity for its own purposes, and that London remains a safe, secure and fun place to visit.

Everything entails some sort of risk, anyway - I consider it far more likely that I'll get run over by a bus than killed by a terrorist, but that doesn't make me want to stay away from buses.

Lee

#42 User is offline   Happy Humphrey 

  • Official Groundspeak Cacher of the Year, 1999.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3571
  • Joined: 17-January 04

Posted 09 September 2008 - 02:13 AM

As you have experience of the local situation, I'm pleased to hear that it's not actually as bad as the impression we get. :rolleyes:
But various authorities do seem keen to play up the security situation. Dire warnings about inappropriate cache locations, searching restrictions and permission formalities, along with caches being hurriedly archived with an air of secrecy are bound to give the impression of a caching no-go zone. So it's surely no surprise if some of us decide to treat the whole railways/London caching scene with extreme caution.

Anyway, thanks for the reassurance! :ph34r:

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic