Landowner permission; where did we go wrong?

[Happy Humphrey]

Having recently read that there are 21000 letterboxes in the Dartmoor National Park, I wondered what would happen if we attempted to flood a similar area with 20000+ geocaches.

I think that we'd have all sorts of issues with landowner permission, not to mention cache saturation complaints.

I mean letterboxers no harm and I'm not trying to stir things, I'm just wondering how come we ended up in this position, where letterboxers seem to have such freedom but we're subject to a great deal of red tape. Urban letterboxing is similar; you prepare your letterbox, place it and post it on the web site. Essentially, letterboxing is virtually the same as geocaching; the couple I've found have been ammo boxes containing log books (and stamps).

So where did we go wrong? Was it in attempting to "do the right thing", thus putting landowners on the spot and forcing them to make formal permission the norm? Is it that we have attracted too much publicity in the media? Is it because we're seen as a "high-tech treasure hunt", using the Internet; which always seems to attract suspicion? Perhaps it's because listing sites are too public whereas letterbox numbers and locations are hidden?

Is it now too late to change policy and learn from the success of letterboxing? Discuss.

[Dave Gerrie]

I think the primary difference (IMHO) is that letterboxing has been going on for a VERY long time. the first letterbox is marked on the OS map at Cranmer Pool, and was placed in the mid 1800s. geocaching simply cannot compete with that kind of historical precedence!

I also think that Geocaching is more pubically accessible. As the thread on the other side shows, getting a convenient list of boxes isn't as easy as creating a login on geocaching.com. That together with the fact the site is american means it has to be more protected from any 'issues' (understandably I think) so there is more regulation.

To me, they are very different activities. I almost never go looking for a specific letterbox, preferring instead to roam aimlessly across the moor seeing if I can spot them. That would be a rather foolish way of caching though!

[Happy Humphrey]

But basically, from a land manager's POV, letterboxes are containers hidden on the land they're responsible for. The same as geocaches. And people go out and look for them, the same as caching. The search method doesn't really matter from an access / permission angle, so you'd think that the same restrictions and regulations would apply. You could argue that caches are lower-impact as you don't have to wander around the area turning over every likely-looking stone (in theory, anyway!).

I'm not sure about the "historic" aspect either. If letterboxes have been there for over 100 years without problems, surely that means that geocaches, being essentially the same, should be fine as well.

[Dave Gerrie]

I see what you mean. I was focussing my comments entirely on letterboxes on Dartmoor, and assume the regulatory authority for Dartmoor is fully aware of letterboxes, and is happy with them. Indeed, I woulnd't be surprised if it promotes the activity! By the same token, I would expect them to be more than happy with the placement of some caches as well, on Dartmoor.

However letterboxing outside Dartmoor is much less common (I've never done it) and less well known. I strongly suspect that many such boxes don't have implicit or explicit permission (lets face it, much like the majority of caches) and are much more closely related to caches in that respect - and they too would probably have the same problems as caching does if anyone tried to obtain permission to place one. It may even be harder to get permission as there is less obvious regulation and no fancy website for landowners to reassure themselves that this is a reputable pasttime!

[martybartfast]

I don't know much about letterboxing but I understand it largely happens on large tracts of open land (e.g. Dartmoor), where it's not always obvious who owns the land and the land is openly accessible anyway, so a landowner is likely to take less of an interest in the fine detail of what's being put there. I also think that the historical aspect is significant and landowners are likely to see Letterboxing as something that was here before their great-grandad bought the farm so they'll let it go on.

Geocaches are more likely to be placed on known owned & managed land such as farms, parks, nature reserves, Forestry Comission or National Trust land and those organisations are more likely to micro-manage what goes on on their property. So it's often necessary to have the buy-in of the landowner.

The nature of our game also makes it relatively easy for landowners to track down and remove caches (as the FC did in the New Forest before the GAGB reached an agreement with them), it wouldn't be quite as easy to do that with letterboxes.

[nobbynobbs]

Just a thought. I wonder whether it's the bad practices of letterboxing that have irritated land owners over the years and has therefore caused our need to do so much negotiating?

[Happy Humphrey]

Just a thought. I wonder whether it's the bad practices of letterboxing that have irritated land owners over the years and has therefore caused our need to do so much negotiating?

I doubt it, or else surely many of the 21000 in Dartmoor NP would have been cleared by now. I think that Marty is nearer to the truth. Caches placed in open country without permission are unlikely to attract attention, just like letterboxes.

But I suspect that once you write to the manager of the open country you set off alarm bells. Particularly if you mention certain words and phrases (like "internet", "GPS", "game","technology","treasure hunt").

Even if permission for the first cache is given, once there are a few in place it might quickly look like it's getting out of hand. It's easy to imagine hordes of anorak-clad techno-freaks suddenly appearing in large teams, bleeping their way from point to point with little regard for the countryside, having been rallied by some whizzo internet site.

My suspicion is that this is what alarms some people, rather than the actual cache hides.
Somehow, the low-tech "letterbox" idea doesn't sound so threatening by comparison, and with no real internet presence it's easy to turn a blind eye and regard it as a quaint minority interest.

Although it's nice to have the cache listings so accessible, it would have been better IMO to have kept them away from casual public view (no caches on Google, for instance, and nothing visible unless you have an account). Too late now, I suppose.

But perhaps the emphasis on technology should be played down. After all, most cachers (in my experience) mainly play for the outdoors adventures and only enjoy the gadgets as a secondary aspect to the game. If at all. But it's easy to get the impression that it's an internet game using high-tech gadgetry which also happens to involve trampling someone's land and leaving boxes of junk everywhere. It's easy to see why we are misunderstood.

[Bear and Ragged]

Maybe it's that letterboxing is more "under the rader" to quote the question over in the other forum:

"It seems that the "official" organisation publish a guide to the locations of the letterboxes. Excellent! How do you get one? Well... first you have to prove you've found 100 letterboxes."

Maybe Geocaching is too open and public?
Maybe the word "Treasure" says that the cache will be buried and puts off landowners, without checking further?

The question assumes that we we went wrong.

I place a Letterbox in your garden, you would probably be annoyed and rightly so. Could you do much about it, not really , throw it in the bin as you would be very unlikely to contact the owner.

I place a geocache in your garden, again you may be angry, then you go on the website and discover there are lots of geocaches close to you and your friends have them "dumped" in their gardens. They too are rightly annoyed, they contact the listing site etc. It goes on from there.

So did we go wrong starting to ask permission to place caches on land owned or managed by others. I don't think so.

[Happy Humphrey]

It's more like, you place a letterbox in my huge garden with a footpath running through it, I never notice it and when anyone visits I'm never aware as it doesn't cause a problem.
Someone places a cache and the same happens.

Someone else knocks loudly on my door, tells me about the existing cache and asks to place another one. At the same time he explains that he'll put the details on t'internet where it will attract geeky treasure hunters from far and wide, all boffins with complicated electronic devices, and it may make the local papers too. But he will get me to sign some forms which will absolve me from responsibility, and my details will be stored in a database which will be really :socool:.

hmy:hmy:

No, as you all ready know. People found caches on their land and complained.

[jacobite]

Where did we go wrong? Did we go wrong?...........I don't think we did!

Obtaining permission, and promoting geocaching in a positive light will only help geocaching in the UK. If we sneak about placing caches without permission, and being less than truthful with landowners/managers, then ultimately some pen pusher will snuff out caching in a huge area.......and that's where it will go wrong.

I can't see how the use of certain words would cause alarm bells to ring with landowners, I think it's how you state your case that counts.

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm not saying that one side is right and another wrong...I'm just comparing 21000 established and unproblematic caches (called "letterboxes") in a National Park, with the chances of the same number of official geocaches being placed in a similar area without causing an incident...nil!

Perhaps all the letterboxes have permission.

But who are the most successful at placing caches...the letterboxers. And I was wondering what they do right (or what we do wrong), as we know that we cause problems with our approach, but they don't.

[Bill D (wwh)]

HH, I do take your point that we seem to have created problems for ourselves.

I think one big factor is that whereas letterboxing is a fairly unpublicized, one might almost say underground, activity, caching has been widely publicized by the media. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in itself, but it has created a much wider awareness of caching. The word treasure is often used in that publicity, and I think that to many people it conjures up the idea of buried treasure, which in turn suggests that we have no respect for people's land or for the environment.

I don't think permission is an issue, or at least not a major one. GAGB's revised agreement with the Forestry Commission in the New Forest has been widely discussed recently, but I believe that letterboxers also have an agreement with them, which has been in place for some time.

[jacobite]

Perhaps all the letterboxes have permission.

Probably not!

[Icenians]

caching has been widely publicized by the media.

More in the media by some cachers, that see this as a plus point, rather than by the media.

[Happy Humphrey]

No, as you all ready know. People found caches on their land and complained.

Just to clarify, the example about caches in "gardens" is, of course, just for illustrative purposes. If you placed a cache without permission in someone's garden then they'd have cause for complaint, for privacy reasons. But we were really talking about managed land such as farmland or moorland. Here we ask for permission out of courtesy rather than necessity, and if a land manager wanted to remove a cache they'd have to prove that it was legal to do so.

Remember that most land in the UK is common land which has been allocated to people so they can exploit the resources. As long as you don't interfere with this exploitation, the manager (farmer, local authority, or other rights holder) doesn't have the right to keep you off it (whatever they might say). In some cases, they'd rather not know what you're up to as long as you don't get in their way, and asking for permission is merely an extra burden to them. So often it's worth a phone call to sound out their attitude before a formal permission request.

[keehotee]

The thing to bear in mind in the case of Dartmoor is that the first letterboxes were in place long before any National Park authority existed in the area. When the moor came under the jurisdiction of a central managing body it inherited the letterboxes, and the "rights" of the letterboxers to place them.
You are wrong to say that geocaching is more widely known than letterboxing.
Geocaching has been in the media lately - but letterboxing appears every so often too, and has done for decades. I also think that if anybody forced the issue, and applied for official permission to place a letterbox on the moor, the NPA would in turn be forced to examine the issue. At the moment caches and letterboxes on the moor are well known and tolerated - but this is probably because nobody has been forced to make any decision on their existence.

[Dave Gerrie]

The thing to bear in mind in the case of Dartmoor is that the first letterboxes were in place long before any National Park authority existed in the area. When the moor came under the jurisdiction of a central managing body it inherited the letterboxes, and the "rights" of the letterboxers to place them.
You are wrong to say that geocaching is more widely known than letterboxing.
Geocaching has been in the media lately - but letterboxing appears every so often too, and has done for decades. I also think that if anybody forced the issue, and applied for official permission to place a letterbox on the moor, the NPA would in turn be forced to examine the issue. At the moment caches and letterboxes on the moor are well known and tolerated - but this is probably because nobody has been forced to make any decision on their existence.

I think thats a very well reasonaed post, and is sort of what I was trying to say much earlier. One could almost argue that letterboxes were 'grandfathered' in when the NPA took control of Dartmoor, and are as much a part of the scenery as the sheep.

However, I very much doubt that this situation could be transplanted to another area, even another NPA-managed area. The distinction between caches and letterboxes would be incidental to the placement of 21,000 'hidden containers' in an area with no history of such placements.

Conversely, I suspect that the Dartmoor NPA wouldn't really object if we attempted to place another 15,000 geocaches on Dartmoor. Anyone volunteering?!

Dartmoor national park actively promotes http://www.dartmoor-npa.gov.uk/index...tterboxing.htm. Though it does have some restrictions. I doubt very much they would see geocaches as being any different.

There are other national Parks which actively encourage geocaching.

As regards common land. There are different types of common, though a common if you are not a tennant of the area will probably be only accessible for you to walk over not for other activities.

The common local to me is 5000 acres, very few activities other than walking across it are allowed ( I have not got the full list to hand) then it is also a sssi.

Next to that land is a 4000 acre moorland farm. The landowner allows pretty much any activity that will not casue damageand most of his land is now access land. The one thing he does ask is that you phone him and ask. He rarely refuses permission to access his land, if he does it will be for your safety.

Most agreements are not done by a formal approach first, most are by an informal contact asking how a landowner feels about the activity and an explanation oif what the activity is. Then if the landowner manager asks for a formal agrreement one will be negotiated.

[Happy Humphrey]

As regards common land. There are different types of common, though a common if you are not a tennant of the area will probably be only accessible for you to walk over not for other activities.

The common local to me is 5000 acres, very few activities other than walking across it are allowed ( I have not got the full list to hand) then it is also a sssi.

Next to that land is a 4000 acre moorland farm. The landowner allows pretty much any activity that will not casue damageand most of his land is now access land. The one thing he does ask is that you phone him and ask. He rarely refuses permission to access his land, if he does it will be for your safety.

Thanks, and it's good to see that "common" sense tends to prevail.
The 4000 acre moorland farm will probably also be common land which was appropriated at some point for the land "owner". So the current manager is sensible in realising that he can only prevent access when there's a practical reason for doing so. Most managed land (even where it's designated "access land") has a public footpath, which allows the manager to get on with exploiting the resources of the land without having to worry about people crossing it willy-nilly.

[sandvika]

I think that whereas Letterboxing and particularly "Urban Letterboxing" remains a "secret" game, our little secret of geocaching was let out of the bag.

By whom and why? By Jeremy Irish because he wanted to make a business out of it. Businesses need to advertise.

Why are we where we are now? Because he wanted to make a respectable business out of it.

I don't think that's wrong so I'd disagree with the implied failure in the subject of this thread.

This goal of respectability is fundamentally why GC.com is far more disciplined and controlled than the other listing sites.

Where I think Mr Irish has gone wrong is in attempting to shape our game in the the way he wants but that's another discussion.

I can understand why cachers wish it were a secret game, it would be so much more simple, and quite probably more fun too. However, I'd suggest that particular genie escaped from the bottle almost at the start and a majority of cachers would not have found out about the game at all if it were secret! Just enjoy the fact that we still have caches and we still have muggles.

[Happy Humphrey]

I don't think that's wrong so I'd disagree with the implied failure in the subject of this thread.

This goal of respectability is fundamentally why GC.com is far more disciplined and controlled than the other listing sites.

It's only a failure in that we seem at times to have more access issues than letterboxing. But I think that we all agree that it's a price worth paying for respectability, which is not to say that we shouldn't look to ways of smoothing out problems wherever possible.

I wonder whether GC.com is simply a listing site though? It looks to me more like the controls and discipline cause it to have become an International Geocaching Authority with attached listings. Otherwise, why would a reviewer reject or archive a cache description because the container is on land where caching is banned? If the cache owner says it's OK then it should be listed, and only archived if the cache owner says that there's a problem. If a landowner complains, a listing site would merely pass on the details to the cache owner and let them decide what to do.

[dodgydaved]

[quote=sandvika;27764]

Where I think Mr Irish has gone wrong is in attempting to shape our game in the the way he wants but that's another discussion.

quote]


FWIW my perception, upto April last year - I haven't really thought about it since then - was that Jeremy Irish was hardly ever involved in the day to day running of caching. He had devoted his time to other avenues. The development of geocaching appeared to be driven by a small group of GSP lackeys who believed geocaching should return to the way it was in the early days and stifle any real evolution.

[sandvika]

Where I think Mr Irish has gone wrong is in attempting to shape our game in the the way he wants but that's another discussion.

FWIW my perception, upto April last year - I haven't really thought about it since then - was that Jeremy Irish was hardly ever involved in the day to day running of caching. He had devoted his time to other avenues. The development of geocaching appeared to be driven by a small group of GSP lackeys who believed geocaching should return to the way it was in the early days and stifle any real evolution.

You were clearly well placed to make that distinction however it is/was happening under his watch and therefore has at least tacit approval.

[sandvika]

It's only a failure in that we seem at times to have more access issues than letterboxing. But I think that we all agree that it's a price worth paying for respectability, which is not to say that we shouldn't look to ways of smoothing out problems wherever possible.

I wonder whether GC.com is simply a listing site though? It looks to me more like the controls and discipline cause it to have become an International Geocaching Authority with attached listings. Otherwise, why would a reviewer reject or archive a cache description because the container is on land where caching is banned? If the cache owner says it's OK then it should be listed, and only archived if the cache owner says that there's a problem. If a landowner complains, a listing site would merely pass on the details to the cache owner and let them decide what to do.

Actually, looking at the DNF rates on urban letterboxing it seems their lifespan is short and many are never found. I think their disappearance at the hands of muggles implies access issues, just not documented formally!

The fact that letterboxing takes place almost entirely within a single well defined area makes it non-threatening. Geocaches are everywhere, including transit hubs and are therefore much more likely to be subject to access issues.

However, I do agree that GC.com is much more than a listing site (I call it a "closed user group" as that is its commercial imperative), and Terracaching.com is too in so far as it provides a different game with different scoring (and describes itself as "semi-open"). Navicache, with syndication, (and perhaps OpenCaching too) is the only open system that seems purely a listing site....which is why I'm so keen to find out how they will cooperate (or not) on governance issues such as landowner consent.

However, GC.com does concern itself with governance and that is born out of a desire for respectability in support of its commercial aims. However well intentioned, I think it's actually misplaced and in the case of GB, GAGB is much better placed to achieve respectability and acceptance by "the powers that be" than Groundspeak. That said, it's up to GAGB to demonstrate this and gain the support of the majority of GB cachers, which I believe is readily achievable, provided that cachers realise there is more beyond the "closed user group" of geocaching.com.

[Happy Humphrey]

The fact that letterboxing takes place almost entirely within a single well defined area makes it non-threatening. Geocaches are everywhere, including transit hubs and are therefore much more likely to be subject to access issues.

I must admit that most of the letterboxes around here (IOM) seem to be in open country (you can't move for them apparently, but I've never bothered to look so I've only found a couple). I guess it's the same throughout Britain, and this is the type of land that doesn't cause obvious access difficulties.

[sTeamTraen]

One possible factor: "Letterboxing" sounds low-tech and reassuring.

We all think we know what a letterbox is (despite the fact that a letterboxing letterbox is nothing like). And it's mainly played on good old Dartmoor, which for most bureaucrats is a refreshingly long way away, somewhere you hope the car doesn't break down on the way to Rick Stein's place or Rock or wherever. They can already imagine the players in Barbour jackets on their way to the (fox) hunt.

Compared to that, Geocaching sounds nasty. The first time you hear the word, you have to have someone spell it for you. It's on the Internet thingy. It was invented by (shudder) Americans, it uses equipment that probably gives you cancer, and it's everywhere. It's probably one of those extreme sports like BASE jumping.

For people of that mentality, if Letterboxing is a couple of gents enjoying a nice pint of best in a bucolic country pub, they will imagine that Geocaching is six skinheads drinking WKD in the gutter outside a club at 3am.

[Bear and Ragged]

For people of that mentality, if Letterboxing is a couple of gents enjoying a nice pint of best in a bucolic country pub, they will imagine that Geocaching is six skinheads drinking WKD in the gutter outside a club at 3am.

LOL!

[Happy Humphrey]

One possible factor: "Letterboxing" sounds low-tech and reassuring.

We all think we know what a letterbox is (despite the fact that a letterboxing letterbox is nothing like). And it's mainly played on good old Dartmoor, which for most bureaucrats is a refreshingly long way away, somewhere you hope the car doesn't break down on the way to Rick Stein's place or Rock or wherever. They can already imagine the players in Barbour jackets on their way to the (fox) hunt.

Compared to that, Geocaching sounds nasty. The first time you hear the word, you have to have someone spell it for you. It's on the Internet thingy. It was invented by (shudder) Americans, it uses equipment that probably gives you cancer, and it's everywhere. It's probably one of those extreme sports like BASE jumping.

For people of that mentality, if Letterboxing is a couple of gents enjoying a nice pint of best in a bucolic country pub, they will imagine that Geocaching is six skinheads drinking WKD in the gutter outside a club at 3am.

Pretty much what I posted earlier in the thread, which is why I'd encourage the GAGB to play down the "internet" and "high-tech treasure hunt" bit when negotiating cache permissions. I imagine six computer geeks on speed rather than skinheads though...

Just one point though; letterboxing is much more widespread than just Dartmoor. For example, there are loads on the Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and Lakeland Letterboxing is popular as well. I'm no expert, but I expect that there are lots in the Peak District and Pennines too.

As an aside, I started "caching" when looking for "Waymerk Kists" on the Southern Upland Way in Scotland (similar to geocaches but no GPS or logbook, and in cleverly sculpted containers full of custom-made coins)

Pretty much what I posted earlier in the thread, which is why I'd encourage the GAGB to play down the "internet" and "high-tech treasure hunt" bit when negotiating cache permissions. I imagine six computer geeks on speed rather than skinheads though...
snip

grandma eggs suck

[Happy Humphrey]

grandma eggs suck

Yeah, fair enough...sorry!

No worries

[The Hornet]

No worries

Did anyone else think "Charles Manson"?!! h34r:

Not been likened to Charles Manson before


The mad prisoner Charles Bronson maybe

[The Hornet]

No, definitely Charles Manson


Remove the hair and add the glasses.................