|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Geoclashing |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:11
|
||
|
GeoTrasher A GeoTrasher is someone armed with the same tools as GeoCachers - a GPS and access to the Net, but who uses these to interfere with caches, or the contents of caches. He may already be a very active Geocacher, but for some reason decides to target particular caches. He might hide the cache in another location, so even the cache planter won't find it. He might even think that he is "doing the right thing". A GeoTrasher will probably simply move and hide the cache up to 100 yards from it's published position. This should be enough to ensure that even the cache planter will not find it. He will also be confident that he cannot be accused of "stealing". More subtle forms of GeoTrashing might involve tearing particular pages out of the log book, or scattering the cache contents to imitate a visit by "schoolboys". However, simply moving the cache is the most likely behaviour - and potentially the most disruptive, since a well hidden cache in grass or heather might take time for even the cache owner to find, armed with his GPS giving 5m or better accuracy. It will therefore take even longer to confirm that the cache is missing. Meanwhile, quite a few Geocachers could have their fun spoilt, searching for a cache that is no longer there.
|
|||
|
shep 10 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:12
|
||
|
"Waste in the wrong place caused by human agency." Geocaches are not waste; they are placed with the intent of being recovered by subsequent visitors. There is no element of "discardment" in the placement of a cache - they are deliberately placed, usually with the permission of the land owner. Caches are accountable, not anonymously abandoned - every cache contains a note explaining what it is, who it belongs to, and who you should contact if you feel that the item needs removing. Of course, depending on your personal feelings, you might still wish to morally perceive these items as "litter", and who am I to tell you that your moral perception is any more valid than mine? However, due to their nature and accountability, from a purely legal standpoint, littering fines do not "stick" against geocaches. This is something which (as you might imagine from the very nature of the game) has been well researched by it's participants! "if a person drops, throws, deposits or leaves anything so as to cause defacement in a public place, they could be committing a littering offence." Again, falling back to pure legal interpretation, defacement involves an act which: "spoils the appearance or surface of; disfigures, impairs the usefulness, value, or influence of, or obliterates or destroys". If a geocache ever did "spoil the appearance" of a location, it would be a pretty unsuccessful cache! - the idea of these things is to remain hidden (and I think the fact that you Mod Ant guys haven't spotted any of these things over the course of the last 2 years is probably a pretty good indication that this aim is usually achieved.) As far as the "obliterate, destroy, disfigurement" aspect goes - if a cache ever did this, then I can assure you that you guys would only get the chance to lynch the offender after we'd finished giving them a good kicking ourselves!!!! This idea goes against the most basic rules of geocaching. (in fact, as far as I'm concerned, it goes beyond the basic rules of humanity - but maybe I'm being a little extreme!) I know there's many people on this site who really *want* us to be bucket-burying, heather-trampling, 4x4-driving, monolith-defacing thugs. But we're not. Sorry. We're just a bunch of people who have a rather offbeat way of enjoying a walk in the country (or even the town, for that matter!). The first time I placed a cache, I took a plastic bag full of beercans and an abandoned 14" television home with me, which had been left by previous "visitors" to the site (anglers - grrrrr!). In exchange, I left behind a 6"x4" plastic box - carefully concealed amongst some tree roots, and covered with natural bark waste. I go back to the site every couple of months, to make sure things are still OK - that the cache isn't having an adverse effect on the site, and that the surroundings are kept clean (we cachers actually get quite proud about the upkeep of our "adopted" territory, in much the same way that I gather you Mod Ants do!). I would guess that, over the course of it's life, maybe ten or twelve people will ever find it there - then I'll take it away or move it on to somewhere else to keep things interesting. The net effect of this action on the environment will be beneficial (my plastic box is, I truely believe, doing no lasting harm at all. I can't say the same for rusting telly!). Is this really so bad?
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:14
|
||
|
I think that the phrase used was 'often with the landowners permission'. And often the landowners have no idea of the sensitivity of a historical site. It is often a 'pile of bloody stones that stops me ploughing in a straight line'. If the landowner has given permission then you are quite right it is not litter. I can't see the likes of National Heritage or the Parks authorities or the Forrestry Commision giving permission for you to leave things anywhere on there land.
|
|||
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:16
|
||
|
which is saying that it's someone trying to spoil your fun ... what we're worried about is caches where they shouldn't be. You'll know if I find one ... not trying to piss you off (not on this thread anyway :-), just trying to give the poor place a chance without crap piling up but again, somewhere with the landowners permission, go for it. I was checking out the one in Burnham Beeches: http://www.gpss.co.uk/geocache/gcbb.htm it's on private land, but with permission. But then it says: Please treat this lovely area with respect, and do not do anything to give Geocaching a bad name. It is important that the reader understand that the current policy of Burnham Beeches Management is that Geocaching should not be encouraged in this area. They have a difficult task in balancing conflicting needs of this being both a park for the public and a National Nature Reserve. In fact they would prefer that this "Burnham Beeches" page were not here at ------------ so, you tell me ... RG
|
|||
lobsterboy 54 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:18
|
||
|
I don't expect we will ever agree on this one. I find it a great way to get the kids away from the TV and into the open air. That's about it really (for me anyway). I personally see no harm if the landowner agrees, it causes no visual intrusion and does not lead to site damage. That's about it really.
|
|||
|
shep 10 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:24
|
||
|
Like TMA, geocaching has it's own factions. I bet you've have splinter groups who (despite no end of "education") still insist on irresponsible acts like dripping candlewax on stones, burying crystals to "heal" sites, shove pennies in cracks etc, and I bet you ostricise them accordingly. To my knowledge, the UK side of geocaching.com has only ever "banned" one member (usually referred to as "he-who-should-not-be-named") for practices which we, as a community, strongly disagree with. You've just found his web site.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:25
|
||
|
I think we are all at the stage of agreeing that if managed responsibly and placed with the landowners permission and not endangering a historical site (and by endangering I mean place in the base of a round tower - see a post in other thread) Then it is not really an issue. We do not want you all to be ... what was it? .. bucket burying SOBs or something. Quite the contrary. And you have more than proved my misinterpreted initial comments to have been for nothing. Now. Shall we forget the slanging matches and start to see if we can tidy up some of the ones that have raised concern so far? Or carry on squabbling?
|
|||
|
lobsterboy 54 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:26
|
||
|
Strangly (perhaps), The forestry comission are very keen to encourage it as are quite a few park rangers where caches have been placed. I have found caches on NT land which have logs from the ranger who looks in on it from time to time.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:28
|
||
|
I stand corrected. But doesn't this go against the one rule quoted above about national parks, or is that from a different site or something? Not stirring ... just trying to understand.
|
|||
|
lobsterboy 54 posts |
Jan 24, 2003, 11:28
|
||
|
couldn't agree more. Just remember that a cache may have the name of TMA site but may not actually be anywhere near it. Then lets look at some contensious ones rationally.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
