Moose Mob

If you have a smart phone, you can get a geocaching app for it. They are not always as accurate as you expect, but with practice many folks have used them successfully. As fa as trade items, I am afraid you will be a bit disappointed overall. Most of the better stuff are remnants of a kitchen junk drawer or the bottom of a kids toy chest. But don't let that stop you... there are treasures to be had by the places this games takes you and the new friends you meet.

Looks like this thread is veering into a tangent. I will close it, and if the OP would like it open, please send me a note through the site. Thanks

When this happens on my Android Bionic, I shut off the phone completely and restart. I use google maps and the geocaching app.

REI usually has a geocaching section. Not a lot of stock, but a few quicker turn over items.

OMG seriously, Ive never said once that I was scared to go outdoors or am I scared of anything that im aware of, just thought that it would be good for some invention of warning people of dangers that they may not be aware of. And "no hate" my a** a few of you are just hating in a different form, lengthy paragraphs without profanity. In my opinion that's worse. This Hobby is for me one of my favorite and I might just now avoid these forums to avoid people like you. And "haters" always try to get the last message in the thread proving what a smart a** they are. Next person will prove it! That 'next person' would be me. (my kids played this silliness until they were 5 or 6) The caches have attributes and descriptions. If you are expecting the Reviewers or your GPS or some other higher being to determine what is a 'dangerous situation' then we would need a detailed criteria of what you would consider to be dangeous. I mean detailed... how close to the road, how close to a rock, how many rattlesnakes per square mile in the desert. If you want them filtered, you setup your PQ to exclude caches with the 'dangerous area' is set. The controls are in place already. They may not be what and how you think they should be, but they are already in place.

The problem is that every geocache on the geocaching.com has some sort of inherant danger if you look hard enough.

Duplicate thread to link

If you are on Facebook you can find them there as well. Make sure you tell NewYorker I said hello. He's real active in the community.

While Keystone's suggestion of r'recycling' is the best option from many perspctives, rest assured that an archived cache does fall off your profile view and you don't see it unless you want to.

Geocaching.com has no such limitation. The biggest issue you may have is archived caches that are locked to prevent logging. Otherwise, it is between you and each of the cache owners. In a vast majority of the situations all you will need to do is to include a note in your log that says somethig like "catching up an logs from last summer's road trip". I know of people that have over 6 months worth of regular geocaches they have to catch up on.

Perhaps Groundspeak will take care of financial assistance for the site while geocachers will provide additional trail maps. Of course the geocacher tracklogs do tend to have additional spurs off the sides, which could add a new catagory of footpaths called 'geotrails'.

I'm trying to understand this. I've found caches in roughly a similar situation. I reached up to grab the ammo can, I hear a rattle. Yep, a rattler was sunning itself on the ledge by the cache and I couldn't see it from below. I jumped back and very nearly slid down the steep slope behind me. Are you saying there is a difference because in your case, the cache owner had designed the cache to scare the geocacher? It seems to me if you are reaching for cache on a narrow ledge where if you jump you can fall down a cliff, you should be prepared for any surprises. Of course a lawyer could probably convince a jury that the cache owner's intent to scare someone show gross negligence if a person were harmed by this. It may be harder to argue the the owner had an intent to have a rattlesnake there. (Though a lawyer could probably find an expert witness to argue that caches attract snakes and that the cache owner should have known this). Most of the debate here seems based on how likely you think someone is to sue, and how likely you think they might win that lawsuit. If Groundspeak started deciding there are certain situations that are dangerous and started to ban caches in these situations, what happens if a person is injured in a situation that wasn't covered? Would a lawyer argue that Groundspeak should have know of the danger there and not published the cache? Instead of worrying about ways to reduce legal liability by prohibiting caches, it seems that Groundspeak is trying take a more measured approach. Geocaching inherently involves risks. If the cache is in a legal location (where cachers can legally be) and where the cache itself does not add to the danger of the location, then Groundspeak is going to allow the cache. If the reviewer or Groundspeak becomes aware that either the cache is in a location that is off-limits or if there is something about the cache itself that makes finding it more dangerous, then they can (and do) act. Yes, the difference is 'intent'. If the cacher had placed a rattler there to scare you, then there is intent. Otherwise, it's an act of God, not an act of a person. Like getting hit with a snowball vs getting hit by a falling hailstone. If you think about it, it's the land manager that will be first looked at for potential liabily, not geocaching. If geocaching starts to be viewed as 'dangerous' then land managers will start to ban geocaches from their lands. My actions were to protect geocaching as a sport, not the individual. Edit: clarification

Let's bring this one back so it is accurate. The quote is taken out of context with slight errors, and enough to make it seem like something different. What I said was that I archived a cache that was grossly negligent. I published it then acted on user reports about a siturtion where the cache caused an issue. In this post, you made this comment: I read that to mean that you declined to publish (i.e., denied) caches that you considered "grossly negligent" and archived many existing caches solely because they were "not a good idea." If you meant to use "denied" to also mean "archived," then I apologize for misreading your statement, but I think it's an understandable error. However, you do judge safety based on the overall situation (i.e., the cache in combination with the location). If a cache makes a startling noise near cliffs, then you will archive it if you feel the conditions are grossly negligent. If you didn't, then you likely would place yourself in legal jeopardy. No, please try again. Please use the facts as presented without 'tweaking' them to mean something you want.

Let's bring this one back so it is accurate. The quote is taken out of context with slight errors, and enough to make it seem like something different. What I said was that I archived a cache that was grossly negligent. I published it then acted on user reports about a siturtion where the cache caused an issue. Not the location, the cache. I cannot act on a location unless it is just a 'bad idea'. "Bad ideas" typically are caches in places where homeless people have used as a latrine or other poor judgement calls. This is usually due to a few complaints backed by a majority of cache logs indicating the cachers were *not* enjoying their experience at the cache. Nothing to do with safety. Oh, then there was one that was in a lampost at a dog park. Seem the log was always wet and smelled funny even though there hasn't been rain and the sprinklers didn't hit that piece of sidewalk. But no, we do not judge personal sfety based on the area. If the land manager/owner feels you are not safe, they will put up signs and maybe a fence.

It's an old resurrected thread, but a reoccurring topic. There is (and always will be) a group of folks that feel Groundspeak needs to be more proactive in warning new geocachers of potential dangers with certain geocaches. The response has been (and always will include) that Groundspeak has no way of accurately determining if a cache is dangerous and especially if a geocache is dangerous to that individual. Just part of the learning curve.

If you were paying attention to what I said, you would have realized that I archived the cache because it would have been grossly neglegent for me to not take an action (as I was the one who published this cache and now aware that the cache created a dangerous situation). If thiswere on BLM land and I am not in charge of BLM land, and BLM allows geocaches, I would not be in a position to say 'no' to the location. I can say not tto the cache and it was the geocache creating the danger, not the location. The location was a hazard, but not dangerous unless there is an outside influence. I only archived the outside influence, not the location.

Are we talking about the safety of the location? or of the cache? In 'the other' thread I mentioned that I have archived a cache due to 'gross negligence' and was challenged to post my input. I think it might be relevant here. The cache was on a trail and the trail ran along a steep cliff about 30 feet down. I don't want to give away too much for privacy reasons, but this trail is on public land (not Groundspeak's land). The park maintains this trail so we would be out of place to overide the goerning authority to say it isn't safe for geocachers. A geocacher places a cache on the opposite side of the trail in the rocks. They use a container designed in such a way that it would make a loud noise and scare the geocacher. Keep in mind that there is a cliff behind the cacher and they could (and almost did) fall off the cliff. When I was made aware (by several of the cachers first at the site) of this situation, I archived the cache. Not archiving it would be negligent on my part. Please note the cache was the thing making the location truely dangerous, not the public trail. If any land manager feels that the location is unsafe, they need to make that location non accessible or at a minimum it's unsafe nature known, they need to take adequate measures against it. There are fences around (most) mine shafts and fences along the interstates. Railroads are typically only protected by laws (and in some 'higher risk' locations you may find a fence). Edit - clarity

Except that it's not. Not publishing a cache due to safety issues isn't the same as certifying that all published caches are safe (especially when Groundspeak has disclaimers saying the opposite). Just like not publishing a cache due to it being on private property without permission isn't the same as certifying that all published caches on private property have permission. You've noted that you've not published some caches that you've deemed "grossly negligent" and have archived many others solely because you considered them "not a good idea." By doing so, you probably decreased your and Groundspeak's legal liability -- not increased it. If you can cite or link to anything that supports your assertion that judging danger imposes a legal liability, then please make a contribution to this thread. You would be the first to provide such evidence. It seems this is pulling the discussion well onto a tangent that is already being discussed in a different thread. I will go read that thread and I will contribute if needed. As far as this thread, it was asked that a line be drawn to determine what is 'safe' and what isn't. I can only repeat what was said... the line of personal saftey is drawn at the person. You may not agree, but again, you don't have to leave the house either. Groundspeak or the reviewers are not assuming the role to pass judgement on caches to determine if they are safe for you or not. Each person needs to be responsible for their own judgements and not make someone else responsible for their own decisions. There are plenty of warning labels on the cache page.

Wow. I think somebody is getting pretty desperate to prove a point. Since this is also the basis for not wearing headphones while driving a car, would this mean that you should use a GPS while driving a car? Walking down the street? trail (can't hear the rattlesnake)? Not paying attention to your surroundings is unsafe. Whether you are rocking out to your favorite music while walking down the tracks or wearing dark shades in a dark room and tripping over a chair. As sad as it is, the kid was not using his common sense and that got him killed. I wouldn't expect the person that sold the headphones to give him a full briefing on when and where to wear them and how loud it was to play it.

I'm not sure what that first sentence means, but if you're asking whether a line would be acceptable to everyone, then I agree that it wouldn't. But plenty of Groundspeak lines aren't acceptable to everyone. Since reviewers are humans, of course you'll find inconsistencies among different reviewers' decisions (and, perhaps, even among a single reviewer's decisions). For example, there are different perspectives on what is "commercial" or what is an "agenda." I'm guessing all reviewers don't draw the "grossly negligent" line in exactly the same place. And I'd bet that some reviewers would have allowed certain caches that you considered "not a good idea." That doesn't mean lines cannot or should not be drawn. Lets look at this from the legal perspective. If Groundspeak assumed authority over 'what is safe' and someone gets hurt while seeking it, then Groundspeak now has a liability beacuase the reviewers have deemed that cache as 'safe for seeking'. Not saying that I agree, just saying that it is what it is. Edit to add: After thinking about this a tad more, I realized the line has been drawn when it comes to personal safety... the line was drawn at the person.

To suggest there is no way for Groundspeak or reviewers to draw a line regarding safety doesn't give them much credit. They are constantly making judgment calls about what is "adequate" permission, which locations are likely "terrorist" threats, what significant barriers justify bending the 0.1-mile saturation limit, when is a cache "buried," how close is "too close" to a school, etc. Making decisions about which caches are unacceptably dangerous might be unpopular, but it could be done. Indeed, there probably is an unpublicized line that Groundspeak and the reviewers are unwilling to cross. I'd be very surprised if they knowingly would publish (or fail to archive) a cache they considered to be grossly negligent, since that likely would place them in legal jeopardy. Reviewers can draw a line for safety, but would it be represtentative for everyone? No, not at all. Would all the reviewers draw it in the same place? No, people have a wide degree of perspctives. There are instances where geocachers have died while at or enroute to a cache (slipped and fell dow a cliff). Many occurances of broken bones, bad cuts, and even poion oak/ivy. Yes, I have denied caches that are 'grossly neglegent' and archived many soley on the basis of 'not a good idea'. But those are rare and not to be overplayed. I am sure other reviewers have done the same.

Well, only about 200 of them would actually have a warning, so you'd have 200 pop-up boxes with the text of the warning and an OK button. You don't mind clicking OK 200 times do you? And you're reading and understanding what the hazards are for each one, right? Since I always load all caches in the area to my GPS (holds 12,000 caches), I may send the caches to my GPS 1000 times before I actually consider doing the cache. I will read the cache page before I go seek the cache. Your safety is not, and should not, be the resposibility of some background corporate entity. I know what is safe for me, I need to know 'my' limitations. If some computer starts picking out keywords or geographic regions that someone, at some time, had an injury, then I will be stuck back at home watching TV. Good thought trend... but it would tick off a lot of folks.

Don't let the geocaches determine where you go. There are caches that will appeal to everyone, it just takes a bit more sorting out.

The difference is that railroad tracks, while being just as dangerous as the other two, seem benign. In particular, everything's all quiet and still when you start the search, but half an hour later while you're concentrating on that tough (or missing) cache, you might not notice the new thousand ton threat that's suddenly coming at you at 50mph. Now I don't myself know if that's a valid risk assessment, but it's enough to make me consider such a rule reasonable. The problem is that there is no way to determine where to draw the line. Geocaches are not allowed near Railroad tracks because of legal issues, not safety. There is no way for reviewers to come up with any consistent way of determining what is 'safe enough' and what isn't. RR tracks, rappelling, hiking in the desert with rattlesnakes and tarantulas, heck.. walking across the street can be unsafe. When you go find a Geocache, you need to be aware of your personal limitations. Not safe? Move along to another one. There are planty Don't leave it to some corporate entity to do it or you'll be back home watching TV all day.

The GarminExport is awesome. I am tweaking how I use it now, But... is there a way to display the POI files created so the GPSr is zoomed out beyond the 300 foot setting? When I go to 500 ft the smileys go away. Thanks