schroeder123

Thanks. Yes I am aware it is not part of geocaching and I could just drop it elsewhere. If, however, the site was not down permanently then I would wait and play by the rules (post my photo of the item and log the move). From one response it seems like perhaps the site is dead.

So my son grabbed Geokret (his/our mistake) a long while ago and we tried to play along and finally photographed it as requested. I'd like to finally log it and move it along but my computer does not access the Geokrety.org site. Perhaps it is my browser setting or file wall. My failure note implies that the site server is not operating. Does anyone else know if the site is still available? Thank you.

Wow, I'm sure calling them a bunch of bums is really going to motivate them to work harder to solve this issue. I really don't think so. I understand where you are coming from, but really, I think that calling them a bunch of bums will only serve to make them waste a bunch of time laughing about it. I can see Nate sending out for coffee and donuts for everyone while they run around the office making "bum" jokes instead of working on the problems. No... calling them "bums" is not going to help a thing... I'm sure of it. Here is a suggestion I have had for a long time, but never mentioned it. I had noticed for the few years that I have been on geocaching.com that the maps sometimes were very slow to update. That observation, and these threads seem to make it clear that the geocaching.com servers are having a difficult time updating all of the caches on the maps. Here is the suggestion that I have always wished for: While we navigate across a map allow map or zoom in and out, allow us to "turn off" automatic updating of the caches until we navigate to the spot that we want to see. That could result in an extremely reduced demand on the servers. I really don't need the map to update "Requesting geocaches...." until I am at the spot on the map where I want them. Thanks for listening.

Yes, that is how our family got started. We had never heard of geocaching until we accidentally found one.

Was the advice from a reviewer? Either way I'd be interested if you're willing to share it here. Sure. This was the thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=268178&st=0&p=4607436&fromsearch=1entry4607436 Basically, the feedback was a combinations of logistics (exactly how do I communicate when the cache should be there), mixed opinions on whether or not is should be allowable, and ultimately not many people responded as though they would like to wait to find it on its "special" days. I'll try to keep thinking about alterations to better suit the feedback.

I also like it that your trying to do something new and interesting. I got good advice last week on my idea for a mystery cache and changed my mind. The idea was to post proper cords of the exact geocache location without any deception. But after solving the puzzle one would find out that the key is not where the cache is, but when it is there. I intended to have it there on specific days that could be calculated in series. However: I got good advice that now has me 95% sure that I won't try to place a cache like that. Maybe I'll come up with something else that I think is fun. I still like my ideas and your ideas big picture, but the details, at least for mine, did not translate well enough to real life geocaching.

You are repeating yourself. You have already been told that the reviewers base their evaluations on the guidelines. The guidelines do not mention safety. From the thread "Guidelines and railroads": I took this as sarcasm over the dead horse argument that this thread has become. Maybe. Maybe not. All the more reason to request a straightforward answer to the question, "Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?" Who are you expecting the reply from? You have had countless people offer their answers, all but two say "No". Note that these are people that have been involved for 8-10 years and have turned every aspect Geocaching inside out. You will not accept their answers, so you just continue with the same talking points, message after message, or offer some scenario that could only occur in a Final Destination movie. Throw something new on the table, or just let it die. If you are expecting a reply from Groundspeak, don't hold your breath. I can not imagine a situation where they would discuss a legal issue in an open forum. 1) I agree that I am beating a dead horse. 2) I must be the other 1 of the 2 you reference. 3) Your statement is hardly correct. Very few people actually answered the question: "Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they determine whether a cache should be published?" Or the similar question "Are Groundspeak reviewers allowed to consider safety when they become aware of an issue after the cache is already published?" When the question has been directly answered it was usually in the manner of; "Yes, sure they can consider safety and provide suggestions or actions regarding safety if they want to and have a clear understanding of their own concern or the concerns of others that have been brought to their attention." Rather, most of the time that that pragmatic question is asked it is responded to with a bombardment of counter questions and scenarios intended to exploit the opposite end of the spectrum that has long ceased being brought into question. (ie, "My answer is that question is 'NO' because I think cliff climbing should be allowed". Or "No, because I don't think that the reviewer SHOULD be held RESPONSIBLE." Or "No, how can the reviewer ever know what is safe." Etc. In each example the answer is indeed, "NO", but the follow up info demonstrates that it is not a response to the question above.

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either. I constructed my example to focus on the basic points I was making. Who cares how exactly the reviewer became aware of the used needles? Just assume they are aware. Do you think they should publish the cache? Thank you CanadianRockies 1st) The example does not have to be very likely to happen. The example’s point is that is would seem odd for a the geocaching community to support a cache that has unknown hidden dangers and provides no value from the danger. (Climbing a cliff can be dangerous but of course one should be allowed to accept such a danger and one gains value from conquering the danger). The example forces (should force) support of the idea that a reviewer should consider safety and to accept that maybe some caches can be identified as a bad idea. Can you give us an example of such an unknown hidden danger that should prompt such action? The previous examples did not have such 'unknown hidden' danger: Cache near a cliff: Known, unhidden danger Cache hidden among wires of lamp pole - known, unhidden danger (I'm pretty sure taht TPTB would archive this cache if evidence is presented to them; not necessarily due to the safety issue, however.) Cache hidden in hole among nearby holes that are seen to contain needles, in a park known for drug activity - known, unhidden danger Cache alongside of busy road - known, hidden danger I’ll try. As is seen from my post totals I am not a big poster and am about to end my participation on this subject. I think I have said all that I can personally say and can, at this point, only repeat myself. I won’t add more examples, rather, I’ll agree with two of yours and disagree to two others: 1) Cache near a cliff: Known, unhidden danger. I Agree. Additionally, I have added that such a cache also provides an intrinsic value to a site seer or a climber.) 2) Cache hidden among wires of lamp pole - known, unhidden danger Disagree. It is clearly unknown and hidden until the cache is discovered. This is different from a cliff or road that is immediately obvious and not in need of discovery. If a small child finds the cache first, while the parent is looking elsewhere, then the danger is now present and still unknown. Additionally, no reasonable value is added by overcoming the threat of touching live wires and not being electrocuted (not for most people anyway). 3) Cache hidden in hole among nearby holes that are seen to contain needles, in a park known for drug activity - known, unhidden danger Disagree. Again, it remains unknown and hidden until a needle is discovered. (I bent this example slightly to better match the real world scenario that either the owner was not aware of the needles or has deviously concealed that from the listing). Now, what if I discover a needle by stepping in a grass covered hole and puncturing my foot??? Let me go on record and say that if my kids and I enter a park with heroin needles lying around I can guaran-dadgum-tee that I did not know about the threat. I’ll hope I discover the needles by site, and miss all needles as a carefully exit. The same can’t be said about a cache near a cliff because humans that hike reasonably trust their ability to instantly discover a cliff long before they face the threat walking into it, climbing it, or falling off of it. 4) Cache alongside of busy road - known, hidden danger I Agree.

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either. I constructed my example to focus on the basic points I was making. Who cares how exactly the reviewer became aware of the used needles? Just assume they are aware. Do you think they should publish the cache? Thank you CanadianRockies 1st) The example does not have to be very likely to happen. The example’s point is that is would seem odd for a the geocaching community to support a cache that has unknown hidden dangers and provides no value from the danger. (Climbing a cliff can be dangerous but of course one should be allowed to accept such a danger and one gains value from conquering the danger). The example forces (should force) support of the idea that a reviewer should consider safety and to accept that maybe some caches can be identified as a bad idea. 2nd) There are certainly bad people on this earth - “CraigsList” killer, tainted Tylonol, etc. As absurd as the above exchange may initially sound, it is not at all hard to imagine that a person would place a cache to purposely hurt someone. Such a person would not engage in the conversation presented above, but rather, as CanadianRockies points out, they would just hide the cache. Now, what should the review do if they found out the situation existed? CanRock was just pointing out that, at some level of information, a conscientious review of cache details can lead to the conclusion that the cache is a bad idea unless altered. And, I believe, has implied that they would support that the reviewer takes action (ranging from disclosure of the danger, to moving, to archiving the cache depending on circumstances) if presented with enough information to do so reasonably after using common sense judgment. INDEED, the reviewer already does this for many other situations and as a results suggest alterations and at other times archives. If the owner disagrees with the reviewer they can go through the appeals process that currently exists.

With each post, your example cache is sounding more and more like a standard LPC and less and less like a dangerous cache. <A quick review of your finds found no LPC finds (surprisingly).> Don't be too surprised. You might be forgetting that some of us have not been around the block as many time as your 19,000+ posts imply. The fact is that I have no idea what LPC is or what you are talking about. Edit because I can't spell correctly the first time.... Thanks. That is not exactly what I am talking about. If this thread is still active, I'll get a picture of the one that I personally don't find appropriate. I have found two caches before at ones like your pic. I suppose, as you state, they must not be listed as a "LPC" either. (I take LPC to be Lamp Post Cache. ). The one I don't like has a metal plate near the base, the plate has a lock, behind the plate is the wiring and the cache. The lock has been broken. Also, I think I'm pretty much up to date now that most people don't think that a reviewer should ever act on any reports of danger, no matter what the danger. I don't really agree with that, but I got what I wanted, which was to find out more about what other thought.

Thanks everyone. It sounds like it would be allowed (if handled correctly) but that most people wouldn't appreciate it. I'll give it a lot more thought. Thank you.

With each post, your example cache is sounding more and more like a standard LPC and less and less like a dangerous cache. <A quick review of your finds found no LPC finds (surprisingly).> Don't be too surprised. You might be forgetting that some of us have not been around the block as many time as your 19,000+ posts imply. The fact is that I have no idea what LPC is or what you are talking about. Edit because I can't spell correctly the first time....

I have only hid 2 caches before and we take good care of them. I have an idea for a cache but wanted to bounce it off of this community first. It would be a mystery cache. The cords would be immediately available as you would have for a traditional cache. However, once the puzzle is solved (not sure what type of puzzle yet) one would find out that the cache is not always there. The solution would explain on what days the cache is there; Such as day 1,2,3,5,7,11,etc (prime numbers). This would be maintenance intensive (so close to home), but you anyone find it fun??

How would it be a simple matter to limit an electrified cache to individuals that demonstrate proficiency with such hazards? "Here is my cache. Your not allowed to get it unless you show me your electrician certificate." I am new here and I suppose that could be a joke. Also climbing a cliff is indeed an obvious danger. The fact that people fall does not mean they did not understand that gravity exists. They were aware of, and accepted that level of danger, but fell. Most people seem to be saying that they want to be allowed to be free to decide what is too dangerous for them. I understand that point and agree in the vast majority of instances.

Exactly. In the street light example mentioned by schroeder123, someone should log "Needs Archived" mentioning that it's in the base of the street light, and the reviewer will take action, typically disabling the cache until explicit permission is obtained. Why explicit permission? Because the reviewer cannot reasonably assume that the company or municipality which owns/runs the street light, would give permission for a cache there. Interestingly, one of the reasons why the reviewer can safely guess that such permission is unlikely to have been given, is that by giving it, the owners/managers of the street light would be exposing themselves to possible legal action. I completely agree with you, but it has not worked out that way yet. I contacted the owner and heard nothing back. I then contacted the reviewer and heard nothing back. I then contacted the reviewer a second time and was told that safety is not a not a concern (a view shared by all or most on this thread). The reviewer also believes permission is not being violated because the owner of the cache leases mall space next to the outdoor mall light. I am very positive that this particular cache can and will be archived (unless moved) because the leaser of mall space is not likely to be the owner of the mall itself. But that got me thinking about why safety was not any concern. For instance, if I personally hide a cache in the wiring of my exterior air conditioner, at my home, then I clearly have permission. But I would like to think that a reviewer would not allow that as a location (if and when it is brought to their attention). However, we are very much hearing differently from those who have responded to this topic.

The minute safety becomes a consideration in the review process, it means that reviewers are in effect declaring caches they do publish to be safe. That opens up a huge legal can of worms. Besides, safety is relative. What is a makes safe cache? Place a cache halfway up a 100 ft. high cliff and that would be unsafe for probably 95 percent of all geocachers. But for a skilled and properly equipped climber it would be quite safe. I understand. I tried to address that with clarity. A cache 100 ft high would fall into the category of an obvious danger that is clearly avoidable and therefore in my status quo (do nothing about it) part of the argument. I felt as though my other questions about safety is the important aspect of my point. Also, I see the the can of worms argument about safety is presented, but do we know that is actually the case? Edit: One more point. I also tried to suggest the action in a way that indeed Does Not mean the reviewers are deemed to declare a cache as safe if published. My point was that if and only if a cache has a serious enough safety issue brought to the attention of the reviewer, that the guidelines give instruction to the reviewer to consider multiple types of actions that would also be presented to the reviewer. Actions for clear and obvious dangers would require no action by the owner or the reviewer.

I just posted, for the first time here, regarding safety issues of caches: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=268146 I want to maybe bring into question another aspect. And that is what should be done when a cache causes the destruction of materials or the environment? You all could post many many examples I am sure, but here are two I have seen, and I don't think the guidelines allow for anything to be done to prevent it: 1) Destruction of plants by a cache placed off a trail. I'm talking about the type of plants the the local park asks to be left alone, not thorny weeds, etc. 2) Destruction of a rocky retaining wall. You've seen them; piles of limestone boulders range in size from you fist to small boulders used to hold back earth or to slow erosion. I've come to a spot like that where the clue states "under a rock". Then one sees dozens of dozens of the rocks rolled down and out of place, presumably many by geocachers looking for the cache. Again, many examples of destruction would exist, but I would like to think that a cache should be archived if the normal and expected actions of geocachers causes significant damage either directly or indirectly. Thanks

I appreciated reading this entire thread and specifically came to the forum today to look for such a discussion. I believe I am aware of a dangerous cache placement and the local reviewer, as is explained in this thread, OK's the placement because the guidelines do not clearly state anything about safety. In my opinion, however, there may be instances in which a geocache can be ruled "unsafe" and action required. While I agree with all comments here, and whole heartedly believe that, "NO", the review should not be responsible for safety; is that all we can ask?? What if we changed to the question to: "If a reviewer becomes aware of an unsafe cache, should the geocaching guidelines provide instructions for them to take additional action?" I would say "Yes" to that question. For instance, the guidelines could require the owner to disclose the "unsafe" aspect of the cache if it is not obvious. What if the safety issue is not easily recognizable by the geocacher?? Could we then be pleased with such a placement after hearing that a small child is seriously harmed by the unknown danger?? Can the reviewer be aware of all dangers? Of course not. But could/should the geocaching guidelines or rules allow the reviewer to take additional actions when a they do become aware of a danger that might be easily overlooked?? Should the guidelines expect or require the reviewer to take such actions?? Here is an example of an unsafe cache placement that is the cause of my exploration into such discussions on this forum: The cache is placed inside the electrical box at the base of an exterior street light. Is that safe? Any electrician will tell you NO, others will understand that it is unsafe as well. Electrical wires are not intended to be touched or wiggled. Especially not repeatedly by people who know nothing of electrical wiring including children. That is why these electrical boxes are locked (though the one in question has been broken). Now, what should we expect of our geocaching community when we learn of a geocache like this? Is "nothing at all" all we can expect? Do we point to the hold harmless clauses if we hear about an electrocuted child? Do we expect a mother on a rainy day to be aware of this safety issue as she begins her search with her children? What if her child sees something and reaches in the electrical box when her head is turned? Is that just her bad luck? Do we not expect anything from the geocaching community and guidelines to help prevent this? Can other caches be equally unsafe and equally difficult to place responsibility squarely on the geocacher? In my mind we can/should draw a distinction between this cache and ones where adults note the clear and present dangers, decide to take the risks, and then sometimes get harmed. Again, my answer is "NO" a reviewer should and can not be "responsible for safety". BUT, "YES" the geocaching guidelines can and should 1) Take safety into consideration AND 2) Instruct the cache owner and reviewer to take action based on some safety issues. The required actions could range from disclosure of safety issues that are not obvious to archiving the cache. Still, in the majority of the cases the status quo should remain if the safety issue is normal and obvious (such as climbing, swimming, etc, etc) Thank you for reading.