Caches close to ancient stones/sites

March 21, 2003

What are this site's published guidelines relating to ancient sites? I haven't seen them updated yet.

These caches don't strike me as following the unofficial guidelines:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59098

The cache is in a small wood (I got a Megellan ) about 50 meters past a Standing Stone. It is a 0.33 litre screw top beaker.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59111

I placed the cache here so you could have a view of The Warrior Stone.. This stone is a Megalithic Scheduled Monument. There are many such monuments in the area. There is no actual access to the stone. The stone is about 275 meters at 55deg from the cache site.

The cache is just off to the left of the public right of way and contains a bottle of pop, a canned drink and a couple of glass ornements.

This last one's not close, but sounds a helluva big, sounds like a huge box. Is it really necessary to include all this rubbish?

How about leaning on those who update the guidelines. I did find this in your FAQ though:

"Food items are ALWAYS a BAD IDEA. Animals have better noses than humans, and in some cases caches have been chewed through and destroyed because of food items in a cache. Please do not put food in a cache."

I've not told your friends the Modern Antiquarians yet BTW :-)

Andy

Responsible cachers are welcome at

http://www.megalithic.co.uk

Prehistoric sites in the UK, Ireland and beyond

Thousands of Images, Links, Downloads, Maps, Web Search, Members Features

March 21, 2003

I hate to answer for Moss Trooper, but I feel kinda compelled to, mostly because I have a nasty feeling I might have missed the point, and wouldn't mind a few things being clarified.

quote:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59098
The cache is in a small wood (I got a Megellan ) about 50 meters past a Standing Stone. It is a 0.33 litre screw top beaker.

50 meters away doesn't strike me as being close enough to deface a monument - it's close enough to be able to look at it, but damage it? Even allowing for GPS error, the page even says that's the cache is not close to the stone, so there's really no reason why a cacher would start trying to lift it (or something equally silly) to get to the cache.

Or am I missing the point? My apologies if I am.

quote:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59111

I placed the cache here so you could have a view of The Warrior Stone.. This stone is a Megalithic Scheduled Monument. There are many such monuments in the area. There is no actual access to the stone. The stone is about 275 meters at 55deg from the cache site.

The cache is just off to the left of the public right of way and contains a bottle of pop, a canned drink and a couple of glass ornements.

This last one's not close, but sounds a helluva big, sounds like a huge box. Is it really necessary to include all this rubbish?

This is what really confused me. The cache page says that the cache is a Micro (ie, an extraordinarily small cache) and we have had fairly recent discussions about food in caches (and the lack of need for).

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

March 21, 2003

My cache in the wood is about 50 - 75 meters to the south of the stone, it is a 0.33 litre Screw cap beaker with a log book, pencil, sharpner and a rubber stamp and ink pad.. no swops as this illeviates the food/drink proble.

Unfortunaltley 75 meters north of the stone is a cache utilised by Orange/O2/BT, whoever. This is quite substancial as it contains a generator, transmission hut. 30 meter antenna and a 8 foot fence surrounding it all.

The second cache at the warrior stone is just of the PUBLIC FOOTPATH by approximatley 1 meter. This is about the same distance from the stome as Ingo Village or may be a bit closer.. It is obvious that Megalithic as not read the whole page.. the cache IS a micro cache.. and contains a 1" high bottle of soda, a 1/2" high can of beer, the contents from a dolls house. Plus two minature glass orniments.

I think Megalithic you should take a step back and read what is written and try and find out about the serounding area. The density of standing stones is quite overwhelming and worthy of a visit.

Moss de Boss... Sorta

1.4k · March 21, 2003

I'll let Moss deal with the placement of his caches but there are some other points here that strike me as needing replies.

quote:
Originally posted by megalithic:
What are this site's published guidelines relating to ancient sites? I haven't seen them updated yet.

No idea, but there is a lot of work being done with countryside agencies at the moment so I assume they will be incorporated into those. Whether they appear on the site or not is a a matter where we are in the hands of the owners of this site.

quote:
I placed the cache here so you could have a view of The Warrior Stone.. This stone is a Megalithic Scheduled Monument. There are many such monuments in the area. There is no actual access to the stone. The stone is about 275 meters at 55deg from the cache site.

Difficult to see how you can damage a site you can't get to! Maybe I am missing something.

quote:
This last one's not close, but sounds a helluva big, sounds like a huge box.

Probably a 1Litre Tupperware box by the sound of it, though it is listed as a micro it is possible that it may be a film container with coords to the actual cache - it happens. Not sure what the issue is with size anyway - given that you won't see either the impact is the same. Though smaller caches involve more searching = more footsteps, more erosion etc.

quote:
Is it really necessary to include all this rubbish?

It's one of the main features of the game. What does it matter anyway? Unless someone finds i and opens it, it makes no difference to anyone what the contents are.

quote:
How about leaning on those who update the guidelines. I did find this in your FAQ though:

"Food items are ALWAYS a BAD IDEA. Animals have better noses than humans, and in some cases caches have been chewed through and destroyed because of food items in a cache. Please do not put food in a cache."

Drink and Pop have not (until very recently) been considered as food items. Though it looks like they may be considered as such (in the UK) really soon now.

quote:
I've not told your friends the Modern Antiquarians yet BTW :-)

Thanks, I have no problem with people arguing with us - but lets get the facts straight before people start shout eh?

Chris

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

1.4k · March 21, 2003

P.s. I was typing at the same time as Moss - so some of the above may seem ireelevant but I've typed it now so it'll have to stay that way

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

March 21, 2003

I've always wondered why it was that with all that spare land, why they built Stonehenge right next (215ft) to the A344

They were obviously thinking straight though as they managed to pitch it only 400ft from the Visitor's Centre. Means we don't have that far to walk.

What is it with these stones? Are we not even allowed to look at them now?

I believe the words "horses" and "arse" go together well on this occassion Andy.

March 21, 2003

This is a picture of a similar cache to that planted at The Worrior Stone.

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/ian.paterson/minicache.jpg

Moss de Boss... Sorta

March 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by megalithic:
What are this site's published guidelines relating to ancient sites? I haven't seen them updated yet.

Bear in mind that this is a US-run site, so the desires of other places may take time to be included.

quote:
These caches don't strike me as following the unofficial guidelines:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=59098

The cache is in a small wood (I got a Megellan ) about 50 meters past a Standing Stone. It is a 0.33 litre screw top beaker.

Almost *ANY* site, by absolute definition, could end up being called an "ancient site". I mean, a place like the New Forest has been around for a LONG time, untouched...

Just because there's a wood, and there's a "standing stone" somewhere there, why should the WHOLE SITE end up having to be designated as an "ancient site".

I mean, take Stonehenge... not far away there is a road, a huge car park, buildings, toilets....

quote:
There is no actual access to the stone. The stone is about 275 meters at 55deg from the cache site.

That's about the same distance as the buildings from Stonehenge!!!!

If you go to France, you'll find buildings etc within FEET of standing stones.

275 metres is quite a distance....

quote:
'The cache is just off to the left of the public right of way and contains a bottle of pop, a canned drink and a couple of glass ornements.'

This last one's not close, but sounds a helluva big, sounds like a huge box. Is it really necessary to include all this rubbish?

As someone else has already commented, this is logged as a MICROcache! So they must be pretty small, or its a BIG micro-cache

But once you have a suitable container (and none of us know's how suitable the container is unless we've been there) then what does it matter what the contents are?

I just placed a cache using a Hornet-sized ammo box: once I've decided that it's "suitable" (we actually took 3 different sized boxes with us) then the contents are irrelevant from the outside... its a BOX! (ok, no food etc...)

As long as the actual cache location is *SUITABLE* I don't think cache size, nor closeness to standing stones, monuments, listed buildings etc is an issue: it's the LOCATION SUITABILITY that is the issue.

Paul

Noone in their right mind would place a cache THERE....

March 22, 2003

quote:
Team Blitz:
That's about the same distance as the buildings from Stonehenge!!!!

If you go to France, you'll find buildings etc within FEET of standing stones.

275 metres is quite a distance....

First of all the visitors centre is to be moved over a mile away from Stone Henge and the road is to be buried and moved quite a distance from the stones.

In France similar things are happening at Carnac. The local people there have just stopped the gov't building a huge visitor's centre and car park complex.

Let's bear in mind that just because someone else has done something doesn't make it right to do the same. You have to think for yourself everynow and then.

Now to 'What is a safe distance?' Many standing stones are just that - a standing stone. They are nothing more than a boundary marker or similar. However, many mark extensive burial grounds which can be anything up to 150m diameter. There can also be extensive settlements nearby too.

I am not going to get into the rights and wrongs of any of the particular caches mentioned above, because I feel they have been addressed fairly satisfactorily already, excpt that i do think 50m is too close.

What does surprise me is the apparent 'So What!?' attitude displayed by some. Megalithic raised a genuine concern about something he had noticed. I think it's commendable that he is still looking and taking a concern and at no point was he offensive or over critical - he simply raised a couple of concerns. His efforts above are to resolve possible points of conflict beteween two communities before they (once again) get out of hand.

So, please don't be so defensive. Take time to think about the issues raised.

If someone put a cache on your grannies grave, no matter how small, what would you think?

Thank you for your time.

March 22, 2003

I'm glad this subject has been raised.

Although I don't have a lot of time to actually go out, I do like keeping an eye on things online.

One of my locallest caches is placed at Mayburgh henge - OK I haven't been there yet but I remember one of the postings saying they had to move several stones but eventually found the right one - yeesh this worries me !

1.4k · March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by FourWinds:
I am not going to get into the rights and wrongs of any of the particular caches mentioned above, because I feel they have been addressed fairly satisfactorily already, excpt that i do think 50m is too close.

I bet you notice the mobile phone aerial not the cache. 50 meters might be too close in a pristine field but where "damage" has already been done I can't see the problem. After all some stones are next to bins & road signs - a micro cache stuck to those signs or bins has Zero impact. If the sign was removed however then your point is valid...it depends on the site really.

quote:
What does surprise me is the apparent 'So What!?' attitude displayed by some. Megalithic raised a genuine concern about something he had noticed. I think it's commendable that he is still looking and taking a concern and at no point was he offensive or over critical - he simply raised a couple of concerns. His efforts above are to resolve possible points of conflict beteween two communities before they (once again) get out of hand.

Fair point - I hope my post was not one of those that showed this attitude, rather I was trying to point out that all is not always what it would seem. Before raising the points here though, it would have been better for Andy to address his concerns to the cache planter first. At least then he would have had a better idea what he was objecting to.

Chris

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

March 22, 2003

Since posting my message above a geocaher has emailed me with the following link (obviously concerned about it)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cachelog_details.asp?ID=53087&L=360612

It relates to this cache.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?pf=&ID=6491&decrypt=y&log=

I will reserve judgement until I have emailed the cahcer responsible and spoken to people who know Lordenshaws better than I do.

March 22, 2003

The fact that the mobile phone aerial is already there and a far worse eye sore is not the issue. Does the presence of a dumped fridge in a layby justify the dropping of a sweet wrapper next to it?

That comment is not aimed to get into the 'geocache = trash' argument, but simply used to illustrate the invalidity of your argument that it is ok to leave a cache close to a monument because the aerial is there already.

1.4k · March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by FourWinds:
The fact that the mobile phone aerial is already there and a far worse eye sore is not the issue. Does the presence of a dumped fridge in a layby justify the dropping of a sweet wrapper next to it?

That comment is not aimed to get into the 'geocache = trash' argument, but simply used to illustrate the invalidity of your argument that it is ok to leave a cache close to a monument because the aerial is there already.

No, but the point is that context is everything. If I were to place a cache under a bench outside the pub at Avebury. It would be within a stone circle, but you can't tell me there would be any more damage caused by this cache then is already done every day by people visiting the pub. The size of the cache as a micro would be little different to that of the webcam that is already there - so I cannot see a difference.

If I live 20 meters from a stone and decide to put a cache in my back garden - would it be any different from me placing a shed there?

All I am trying to say is that distance can be (not always) irellevant, it is impact and context that we should worry about.

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

March 22, 2003

Originally posted by FourWinds:
Since posting my message above a geocaher has emailed me with the following link (obviously concerned about it)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cachelog_details.asp?ID=53087&L=360612

It relates to this cache.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?pf=&ID=6491&decrypt=y&log=

I have visited this site and the cache hidden there poses no threat to the hill fort , the cache is beyond the fort area and to get to it you can walk through the hill fort or by other routes,but the idea is to get you to visit the whole site .Had this cache not been placed there I would never have known that the place existed. we did enjoy the visit.I his a cache at Ravens cleuth , there is a stone circle 200 meters from the spot, mind you it makes me wonder how they call 4 stone a circle, Surely thats a square

On my cache info I do tell people to go over and have a look at these stones, although they look like nothing of great interest , they are part of our heritage, that is every man women and child in the country's, and not just there for any particular group of people .

getting a bit off the subject, but on some land which I rent , there was a bronze age cist found in the 1920's , this is known as the summerhill site, the skeletal remains and the beaker were removed to Hancock museum in newcastle and placed in a man made chamber at the front of the museum,

four more cists were found in the next fiels in the 1940's and one went to sunderland for some reason, another was taken by the so called expert on the site, he later wrote a book about these cists found in the Blaydon area, he keeps the skeleton in a cupboard in his house and has incorporated the stones from the site into a garden feature in his own garden. all this moving about of theses stones must have caused damage to them, so in my way of thinking , these experts are more of a nuisance than the general public are.

Nige

March 22, 2003

In previous discussions re food and drink in caches,the merits of different types of packing were considered and whether they could allow placing of food or drink. The concensus seemed to be that guidelines say no food or drink and should be adhered to.

In previous discussions re placing of caches in forestry commission or similar land adherence to guidlines was again an issue. In relation to context I argued that to some vast acres of evergreen trees was more of an abomination than a small container well concealed. The consensus seemed to be that if the landowner wished us to adhere to set guidelines we should respect that if we wanted to continue caching in these areas.

I agree with the consensus above.

It appears we have a group of people, perhaps with no statutory authority, who would like guidelines re placing caches near ancient sites. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

Defineing such sites, agreeing guidelines and implementing them would not be a simple task. But perhaps as a relatively self regulatory body we should add a UK guideline based on distance and see how it goes.

Surely the argument over relative disruption of visitor centres, roads, pubs -v- caches near ancient sites

is the same argument as footpaths, mountain bikes, horses -v- caches in forests.

I propose we add to UK guidelines, a distance rule for ancient sites.

I don't know how to classify them, nor recognise one if I came across it in the wild. But the topic starter may be able to help there.

Lance

It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.

March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by FourWinds:
What does surprise me is the apparent 'So What!?' attitude displayed by some. Megalithic raised a genuine concern about something he had noticed. I think it's commendable that he is still looking and taking a concern and at no point was he offensive or over critical - he simply raised a couple of concerns. His efforts above are to resolve possible points of conflict beteween two communities before they (once again) get out of hand.

This subject was done to death a couple of months ago. At the time it appeared that some form of consensus had been agreed. Neither of the two caches that he highlighted were in breach of that consensus.

Perhaps next time he should check his facts before he comes in making accusatory statements. All his intervention has done in this case is to unnecessarily open old wounds.

I particularly took exception to the veiled threat at the end of his post. From what I remember, he isn’t exactly flavour of the month with the Modern Antiquarians himself.

-

March 22, 2003

quote:
From what I remember, he isn’t exactly flavour of the month with the Modern Antiquarians himself.

No comment....

March 22, 2003

quote:
It appears we have a group of people, perhaps with no statutory authority, who would like guidelines re placing caches near ancient sites. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

You are right. Absolutely no statutory authority whatsoever, just a concern that is obviously shared by a great many geocachers.

There is no point in anyone getting aggressive/defensive over this. In these troubled times let there be at least some hope for diplomacy in the world.

March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by FourWinds:
No comment....

-

March 22, 2003

We will never be able to come to an agreement with the Mod Ants about guidelines for placing caches near to ancient monuments. We have an obsessive desire to plant caches and they have an obsessive desire to keep people away from ancient monuments. Both sides think the other is unreasonable. We have no overlap to compromise.

If somebody is going to complain about a small plastic box 50 metres away from a standing stone, I don't think there is anything we can say. Sure there may be ancient burial grounds around (note 'may'). But these are by nature underground. If we were burying caches, then there is a complaint, but we're not. Why are they picking on cachers over just anybody who walks over one of these sites?

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

March 22, 2003

I agree that my examples are not catastrophic, but I suspected there would be others, as Fourwinds showed.

I posted publicly as I remember the concensus after the little disagreement was that an ancient sites guideline was going to be created. Two months down the line this was a nudge in that direction.

I seem to remember a distance of 100m from an ancient site being mentioned. This sounds about right to me.

Andy

Responsible cachers are welcome at

http://www.megalithic.co.uk

Prehistoric sites in the UK, Ireland and beyond

Thousands of Images, Links, Downloads, Maps, Web Search, Members Features

March 22, 2003

quote:
If someone put a cache on your grannies grave, no matter how small, what would you think?

If someone put a cache *ON* any grave, I would be upset.

If anyone put a cache *ON* a standing stone, or similar ancient monument, I would also be upset.

If someone placed a cache in a hedge, about 5 ft from the nearest grave (seen a few like that!!!) then as long as it's well hidden, in a sensible place, and it won't encourage anyone to actually damage graves etc, then I have no problem.

If someonw places a cache in a sensible place, at a 'sensible distance' from a standing stone etc, then as long as it's well hidden, in a sensible place, and it won't encourage anyone to actually damage the site, where is the problem?

paul

Noone in their right mind would place a cache THERE....

March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by megalithic:
I agree that my examples are not catastrophic, but I suspected there would be others, as Fourwinds showed.

No he did not. The example he came up with proved to be as spurious as the ones that you pointed out.

Like I said before. We had agreement the last time this was discussed. Coming here intent on stirring up trouble will not enhance your cause one iota. Probably the opposite.

-

March 22, 2003

I am locking the thread as it seems to be going around in circles.. whatever the rights or wrongs.

I work 25 meters from the Museum of Antiquites, at the University of Newcastle.

I will have a discussion with people who are really in the know and come to some form of decision with the other moderators.

This will then be published on the forum.. What I will say is that the majority of people do not use the forum and at present we are looking into ways and means of publishing to all and sundry.

Thanks for your patience.

Moss de Boss... Sorta

March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by megalithic:
What are this site's published guidelines relating to ancient sites? I haven't seen them updated yet.

These caches don't strike me as following the unofficial guidelines:

The example concerns raised above have, once again, been shown to be groundless.

We have, and will continue to refuse to approve caches which as far as we can tell are at risk of causing damage.

If a cacher, or anybody else, contacts us with concerns regarding any particular cache we will, and have, suspended/archived them until the issue is resolved.

Creating guidelines for caching in the UK is not a spurious, back of an old envelope affair conducted in the local pub over a pint or two.

We are currently in negotiation with official bodies over the creation of our guidelines and those are the ones which we will enforce.

I do not intend to discuss this further here and would appreciate an end to this thread.

Tim & June

UK Admin

March 22, 2003

In hindsite.. I won't lock the thread.. but the rest of it still stands

Moss de Boss... Sorta

March 23, 2003

We visited both of these caches yesterday. In my opinion, they were very responsibly placed.

Cache (1): The standing stone is in the middle of a MODERN plantation. If the poster is concerned about disturbance to the stone itself, he should perhaps worry more about the fact that the land managers have planted young trees within reaching distance of the stone. The fact that a small plastic flask has been concealed 50 meters away isn't going to have ANY detrimental effect on this ancient monument (I would elaborate more on the nature of the hiding place, but I don't want to spoil things for future hunters... but it is well thought out and non-damaging to any existing treelife, stones etc.). As far as "preserving the sanctity of the landscape" is concerned, I think the fact that this stone has had an entire woodland plantation and a O2 repeater station dumped around it is going to be slightly more significant to the stone's history than the aforementioned geocache is ever going to be. The cache itself is a "rubber stamp" style cache - you don't leave anything, you don't take anything away... you just stamp your personal log book. It was expressly set up this way so that items that may be detrimental to the environment would not be accidently left by less-experienced cachers.

Cache (2): I've just uploaded a photo that I took from the cache site to the cache's web page. If you look very hard at the treeline on the left hand horizon, you might see a couple of slightly ligther coloured pixels. That, my friend, is the warrior stone. It's actually quite a significant distance from the cache, and on private land which can't be accessed anyway. The hard-surfaced track that you see in the foreground of the picture is where the cache is hidden (there's actually a modern house just off the left hand side of the photo - I had to angle the camera to avoid it and maintain the illusion of rural isolation!). The cache is a 35mm film container, containing dolls house toys.

IMHO, Moss has done a perfectly good job with these caches. The thread starter should do his homework before flinging accusations like this!

March 23, 2003

Well hello there! Yes we placed the one at Mayburgh Henge and...?

No we haven't defaced anything in any kind of way, just used the local terrain as any other 'sensible' cacher would. Like any other of our caches they have been placed because we like them for whatever the reason, and just wanted to share the 'experience' with others. If offence has been caused by any of our caches , do us a favour, eh?! Drop us a line personally. Thank you & good night!

P.S. We've been to H.T.T. and thoroughly enjoyed it...there really can't be folk out there that think other cachers would intentionally harm our national relics, are there? Shame on you all.

March 23, 2003

As it was me who originally raised concern about Mayburgh I will reply.

As I said, I have not been to this site yet. I may go this weekend if I get time.

It was the postings by a previous cacher that drew my concern:

"November 21, 2002 by SHARPEY (5 found)

found this cache on second attempt,first to find it. Good site although very busy hard to look inconspicuous when looking under every rock on the site...T & L "

OK this was some time ago.

But my point is:

The owner of the cache may think they are being as responsible as possible. But it's not outwith the realms of possibility to think that an enthusuiastic cache searcher will be (how shall I put it) more rigourous than an archaologist?

As previous posts on this subject, we should hear what the guidelines should be. But I just think this should be borne in mind, that's all.

Here endeth

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chives:
As I said, I have not been to this site yet.

It was the postings by a previous cacher that drew my concern.............

We can all read implications into comments left on the cache pages, which have previously triggered much heated debate on these forums. I would ask you, and anyone else who is concerned, to go and visit these places before passing judgement.

Judgement was made about one of our caches because of an innocent comment "looked behind the rock and lifted the rock...". Highly capable of misinterpretation unless you visited the site to discover a cache behind the (concrete) boundary stone, consisting of a fake rock more usually used to hide a key.

We made that one a virtual anyway as an attempt to defuse the vitriol at the time. However, now the heat has passed, can we please have a debate around real experience?

Dave

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chives:
As previous posts on this subject, we should hear what the guidelines should be. But I just think this should be borne in mind, that's all.

I've spent some time this morning on the Modern Antiquarians site and magalithic.co.uk and can't find their guidelines anywhere.

Indeed there are many instances in the Modern Antiquarians forum where acts of tresspass are openly encouraged.

I suggest that non-geocachers who are posting on the geocaching forums go away and put their own house in order before telling us how to conduct oursleves.

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tree Hugger:

I suggest that non-geocachers who are posting on the geocaching forums go away and put their own house in order before telling us how to conduct oursleves.

Whilst Tree Hugger may, or may not be, a troll name to be fair to the TMA people their site was Spammed by someone from the UK Geocaching group in the first place. Otherwise they would have continued to be blissfully unaware of the existance of Geocaching anyway.

--... ...--

Morseman

March 24, 2003

[[

IQUOTE]

Whilst Tree Hugger may, or may not be, a troll name to be fair to the TMA people their site was Spammed by someone from the UK Geocaching group in the first place. Otherwise they would have continued to be blissfully unaware of the existance of Geocaching anyway.

--... ...--

Morseman

Why open up old wounds, this has been gone over and over again and again, dont cause bother its old news, your begining to sound like sky news, same thing over and over again, And I'm sure tree hugger is fully aware of the facts, he has read the posts of the past, unlike some who used to but in, without reading up first. a great thing a memory.

Nige

March 25, 2003

I don't think The Mod Ants display their guidelines prominently enough, but that's a matter for them. Our guidelines, signed up to by many web sites are linked from the bottom of every page, and are here:

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=9

Responsible cachers are welcome at

http://www.megalithic.co.uk

Prehistoric sites in the UK, Ireland and beyond

Thousands of Images, Links, Downloads, Maps, Web Search, Members Features

Caches close to ancient stones/sites

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation