ZeMartelo

Im wondering whos going to foot the bill for the operation?

Thats because we cant administer common sense into folks. Its a personal decision that can be costly and I guess the question is how many destroyed lifes is the geocaching community willing to accept to continue to accept these kind of caches?

If you look at the gallery theres other folks that I guess did the same thing to get to the cache. Its unbelievable.

The first one seems to violate the guidelines - it's on (under) a major highway and over train tracks! A twofer! It would appear the rules are different in Europe. For the first one is it even legal for someone to climb/rappel a bridge like that? And some of the pics sends me shivers seeing folks standing on the metal beam with no security equipment. Its a wonder nobody got killed yet. Same for the second one, although probably not death but serious injury. I do question why these caches are allowed... these caches do put folks in a dangerous position! So many things can go wrong with catastrophic consequences. Geocaching is not worth the risk. Where is the common sense? Anyone cares to dispute why caches in dangerous places should not be allowed?

Some folks here are joking and brushing with the idea that a cache owner could be sued for negligence... The only answer I have to these folks that think it wont happen is to just sit and wait... it might come sooner then they expect.

Its a worthwhile statistic that shows that theres too much geotrash out there and that is sad.

And this right here is why I say unless GC steps in nothing will change.

Until GC starts taking possible dangerous caches seriously theres nothing that can be done to prevent any more unnecessary deaths because of this silly game. Case in point, a new cache has popped up, it requires rappelling. It not a huge climb or anything but the potential for an accident is there. In the local facebook page I raised the issue and even pointed to this thread. The reaction was expected to just brush it off. "Its common sense", "I'm pretty sure somebody got in a car accident and died somewhere today. Not going to keep me from driving tomorrow, either.", "Its know in advance that there are risks", "we take our own risks so if someone is not comfortable doing a find then simply don't do it","but it doesn't change the fact that accidents happen, people do these caches at their own risk, and you cannot legislate common sense!","I wouldn't wander into the middle of a busy road, after all - I'd use the crosswalk. It's all about doing things safely - even dangerous things."... You get the gist... Not one single individual reflected and said that perhaps it could be dangerous. NOT ONE! People forget that geocaching is a family game and people of all sorts and all ages play it and some want to have the smiley on every single cache, or simply feel they have to do it to be felt part of the community. Rappelling can be done safely but people need to have the right equipment and know what they are doing. I dont think thats the case for all geocachers, so the potential for accident is there. So in the end all this discussion is futile until GC gets onboard.

I took a look at that cache. Im also wondering. Is that cache in a legal spot? I know its an abandoned bridge pillar but is it not private property? Was there permission to place a cache on what can be considered a dangerous environment? Just wondering in light of the discussion in this thread.

Rather than telling potential finders to avoid muggles, potential finders are encouraged, even warned, to work in groups. It looks very different than the listing we've been discussing. Quite a disclaimer.... But Im wondering and thats why Im asking the question. Would that disclaimer hold any ground in court?

You are right. Lets blame the dead guy. So convenient.

I would reword your second sentence to "Cache owners need to exercise common sense." Because of the lack of foresight and negligence a cache owner cost the live of another cacher so who is at fault here? The victim? Cache owners need to be held accountable for the outcome of their caches. It's their private property and if something happens while on their property they are liable. No difference here. This unnecessary death would've not occurred if the cache owner stopped for a second and realized that "you know what? That place can be dangerous and if someone makes a mistake can get seriously hurt!". Simple as that. Geocaching is not an extreme sport nor should it be. If people seek those thrills they should look elsewhere because usually for that theres security and things are planned so nothing goes wrong. No such thing in geocaching. You cant control what people will do and what will happen to people when attempting to get the cache. Yes people should use common sense but accidents do happen. So in this case we have a family that has been destroyed, GS washes their hands behind their no liability disclaimer and the cache owner archived the cache as to say I had nothing to do with it and here in this thread we have people blaming the victim for getting killed. Everythings perfect nothing to see here lets move on...

Yes 11000 caches a day should be enough but I dont have that, I only have 5000 caches a day split into 5 pocket queries. Like I said its time for GS to revise those PQ limits. Ain't going to happen. It's time for you to get a smartphone just like all the others that cried for more PQ slots two years ago. You might be a really good cacher, but 5,000 a day is more than you can find in a day. Why do you need to have access to 11000 caches/day then?

Yes 11000 caches a day should be enough but I dont have that, I only have 5000 caches a day split into 5 pocket queries. Like I said its time for GS to revise those PQ limits.

I think its time for Gs to revise the limits on pocket queries... 1000 caches per pocket query doesnt cut it anymore let alone being limited to 5 pqs a day. Why are folks limited to such draconian limits when users of a paying third party software that eliminates the need to come to the website altogether should have easier access to the database?

If the cache has been archived because of the guidelines then almost all of the find logs should be deleted as well as nobody has signed a logbook (electronic or pen). I am surprised that nobody is commenting on the fact that people are signing a find on a cache that is not valid and has been archived and on top of that they know that theres no logbook to sign because they disclosed that on their logs and even post pictures of empty containers!... It really is all about numbers with caching these days...

+1

+1 This post sum it up pretty good imo. But theres is really a simple solution to this madness of this kind of claims. Get rid of find numbers and stats altogether like the challenges. Geocaching has become all about numbers.

I played with a Montana today and for hiking the Montana is not that good. Its heavy and bulky. Unless you want to carry the unit in a pocket or with a lanyard around your neck you will get your hand tired pretty quickly and the hike will not be pleasant. The big screen is nice thou and the 5megapixel camera is also a plus, but overall Im keeping my 550. I rather feel that Im not carrying a heavy rock on my hand when Im out on the trails.

I went back to 5.0. cant stand the boot length.

That happened to me too yesterday. I was on a cache run with other cachers and a I had a cache that someone didnt so I tried to send it wirelessly and it froze my unit solid @97% and his unit locked up as well. Of course had to pull the batteries and reboot and wait for five minutes to reload the cache file...

Reverted back to 5.00 and the booting worked fine. No more file reload... Installed 5.10 hoping that the unit cleared itself of any setting and back to reloading the cache file at every boot. I guess 5.10 will be a miss for me and Im going back to 5.00

Is anyone else having the reload the cache file at boot? Since the update everytime I boot the unit it reloads the caches as if a new file was sent to it. I use the NuviExport GSAK macro to create the caches to the Oregon. It just started with version 5.1 Any way to fix this?

wow... it took a long time to boot but its working fine now... I guess the moral of the story is to make sure you have a fresh set of batteries installed. It could take awhile to boot the first time. Nice improvements. Like how the caches list show the extra info.

wow... it took like 15 minutes to skip to the next step which is to load waypoints tracks and routes... thats where it usually hangs when loading a new fresh cache file...