grufty jim
|
still don't get it, sorry
Jan 22, 2003, 15:43
|
I'm not speaking for anyone here other than myself, as there's a very diverse view amongst HHers as to what constitutes "sacredness". However, from my point of view, what you geocachers are doing is deliberate littering and frankly i consider that mildly profane. Not gonna start a jihad about it or anything, but there you have it.
I am of the view that there's more than enough non-biodegradable petrochemical-based litter unintentionally left in places i consider sacred; without geocachers arriving and leaving more bits of plastic (however well hidden).
I would not choose to secret away little caches of party favours in the great cathedrals and mosques of the world; because however well i hide these items, it is still disrespectful to a place that some consider sacred.
At the same time, i'm trying to impose my belief in the sacredness of the landscape on geocachers out there, but don't try to tell me that well-hidden litter somehow isn't litter, or that leaving litter at a sacred site is not in some way disrespectful to others who don't share your pursuit and like the landscape sans plastic.
|
Kammer
|
Re: Why not?
Jan 22, 2003, 15:45
|
Churches? God help us! Churches in another context would be fine, but not here, please!
Next thing you'll be suggesting that people post up castles, Roman forts, Celtic crosses...
... oh... they already have.
:-(#
Kammer x
|
grufty jim
|
amusing slip
Jan 22, 2003, 15:45
|
"i'm trying to impose my belief in the sacredness of the landscape"
should actually read:
"i'm NOT trying to impose..."
(or should it?)
:-)
|
Teasel
|
Re: Here come the posse
Jan 22, 2003, 15:57
|
Hmmm, well I guess it fits - 'fuck' is really, really old so it must be worthy. Strange though, the last time I called someone a 'twat' they got most offended... :-)
Anyway, to be serious for a second, could I urge anyone who does find a cache in a place where it's likely to result in damage to ancient monuments, to demand its removal using the link on the geocaching website. The rules on cache placing are very clear, but with over 40000 caches worldwide, it's possible that some managed to slip through.
Physically removing the cache yourself is a bad idea for two reasons. In the short term it is likely to increase the erosion in the immediate locality (up to, say, 20m), as people walk round and round in circles searching for it! In the longer term, if nobody is made aware of the inappropriateness of the location, it's likely that a replacement cache will be placed nearby (and be better hidden!).
Of course, some people will object on principle to lunchboxes being left all over the country, even if they never actually see one. However in general, geocachers try to be as invisible and low-impact as possible and would like to know quickly if a particular cache is causing particular problems.
|
juamei
|
Re: Here come the posse
Jan 22, 2003, 16:03
|
|
How about removing it & letting (presumably) geocaching.com know that it was inappropriately placed? (ie it was findable by someone who didn't want it there?)
|
elderford
|
Re: geocaching rules
Jan 22, 2003, 16:06
|
...yeah, but the following is in their rules:
(Added 5/28/02) Please do not place caches on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans. If you find a cache in one of these areas please remove it and replace it a safe enough distance from the site to ensure that the site will not be impacted by people searching for the cache and unknowingly traveling over or through a site.
|
Kammer
|
Re: GeoCaching
Jan 22, 2003, 16:08
|
I can relate in part to the attraction of Geocaching. I get off on the same thing regularly, recently aided by my bright yellow GPS.
I find a grid reference from an obscure Web site, and stagger off into the countryside, wife and kids in tow. We whoop it up a bit, and everyone gets excited at the prospect of finding this thing that's really well hidden and off the beaten track. When we find it it's dead exciting, and (I confess that) I mentally tick it of my list of the places I <I>need</I> to visit.
But...
I'm looking for minor Bronze Age megalithic monuments. When I get there I take photographs and I take note of the site. When I'm done and I leave there's NOTHING to show that I was ever there. That's the really important difference, the one that everyone is trying to convey to you. We have a lot in common, but when it comes to this point, all that means sod all. Whether it's a candle, a tin can or Geocache, as far as I'm concerned it's littering.
Why not try our 'sport'. It's bloody excellent, and it doesn't encroach on anyone else's enjoyment of the countryside.
Kammer x
PS. I have a gold meddle for finding small standing stones in tall grass.
|
lobsterboy
|
Re: still don't get it, sorry
Jan 22, 2003, 16:13
|
I'm not aware of any hidden within the fabric of a monument. if the site is historical (rather than just pretty countryside) they are usually virtual.
For example Castlerig stone circle is a virtual cache where you have to count the number of stones - no disrespect their I hope. Others take you to a site where you collect some information giving an offset to a physical box.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: GeoCaching
Jan 22, 2003, 16:15
|
>PS. I have a gold meddle for finding small standing stones in tall grass<
so you were meddling with the site were you, you naughty chap?!
|
Teasel
|
Re: Here come the posse
Jan 22, 2003, 16:21
|
If you found the cache without the help of geocaching.com, I'd say that was fair enough (assuming the cache didn't have the express permission of the land owner to be where it was).
Keeping hold of any log books / cameras / things-with-dogtags-on in the cache would win you a big vote of thanks for not getting as angry as perhaps you were justified in doing under the circumstances!
(Incidentally the bit in the geocaching rules about relocating caches found in sensitive areas relies on a feature registered geocachers have to log the new coordinates on the cache page. To relocate a cache without getting the cache page changed would only exacerbate the erosion problem).
|
