[High Risk Caches]

A witch hunt? Let's not get too outrageous here. Is advocating putting some notice into a cache page really a witch hunt? I have not asked for the caches to be archived or the cache owner to be banned. In fact, I'm probably more in favor of the caches than most local people. I enjoyed the hide I have found. All I wished for was a bit of info in the description so the unknowing cacher can beware. The only things I have differed on when it comes to the cache owner are the implications of racism, his or her insistence that the areas are not dangerous, and that terrain dangers are not the same as area dangers. I am quite ok with caches being wherever an owner wants to put them. So if advocating for some info in the description makes me a witch hunter, then I guess I'm a witch hunter.

 

Dismissing any discussion to the opposite argument? Couldn't I say you're doing the same thing? ARE YOU ON A WITCH HUNT??

 

Seriously, though, by the danger = danger argument, I could turn around and say crime = crime, no matter what crime it is. Usually, however, "high-crime" refers to violent crime, with theft sometimes thrown in. You might be more comfortable in areas where there's JUST domestic violence, drug crime, and prostitution, but I would say those types of areas should probably demand some note in the descriptions as well. We'll just have to disagree on that point, I suppose.

 

Again, I have no idea what types of parks you frequent, but I don't have that issue.

 

One last thing:

 

It is more likely that you will die in a car crash on your way to the back woods than by being attacked by a bear.

 

In the Yellowstone National Park in the U.S., statistics show that you are more likely to drown than to be attacked by a bear. In the period between 1839 and 1994, 101 people died from drowning but only 5 people were killed by grizzly bears.

 

Far more people are victims of violent crime!

[High Risk Caches]

Yes, perceptions vary wildly and are based on subjective opinions. However, crime statistics are not subjective. It is a distinct reality that certain areas have higher incidences of crime. There is no perception involved.

 

I'm not sure what type of parks you have where you live, but there are no "shooting galleries" in any parks I am near.

 

The point is not to argue about perceptions of "bad" areas. I realize people live in those areas. I have lived in those areas. Good people do populate those types of zones. But the fact remains that areas are labled high-crime because they have high amounts of crime. It's as simple as that.

 

If you are designing a cache to make a person spend a lot of time in a high-crime area, I think it is respectful to mention the type of area in the cache. It is, in my opinion, dangerous to mention the area is actually "safe" when in reality it is not, as the statistics tell us. In the end, you are right, it us up to each person to be safe and make their own judgments. When you do not have the information to do so, however, I feel it is dangerous to lead someone there with no notice.

[Beta test a new puzzle]

The first issue I have with this puzzle is it should be "hidden" instead of "hid". I'm a professional editor, sorry for being anal.

 

Outside of that, I enjoy the puzzle.

 

You should check out Mother of All Puzzles, a cache hidden in Ohio. It might give you some inspiration.

[High Risk Caches]

Caches typically don't last long in high crime areas anyway. There's always someone watching, so the caches get muggled pretty quickly.

 

These caches will not be taken. They require special equipment and unless you know to be looking for them, you will never even know they are there. They are not even really prone to accidental discovery.

[High Risk Caches]

I am also a local of the caches in question. And I have had a brief (also ongoing) dialogue with the cache owner, who is obviously a well-versed, experienced cacher using a new account. Here are my thoughts in the situation in general and to some of the specific subtleties brought up by the original poster.

 

1. In general, terrain and high-crime "danger" factors are completely different. As many have stated, you choose the danger in a tree. You may not choose the danger another chooses to inflict upon you in a high-crime area.

 

2. The cache owner of these specific hides has made the subtle (in public) and overt (in private) statement that people feel they are unsafe in these areas due to preconceived notions, aka racism. I have lived in high-risk areas where I was the target of racial crime and I have a fairly vast personal history with ethnicities outside of my own. And one thing I have learned is: danger is danger, no matter the color, gender, ideology, or economic background. These areas are dangerous and it has nothing to do with racism. The cache owner equates this danger with the danger one faces while doing terrain caches. I couldn't disagree more, but everyone is entitled to their opinion on what danger they think one should endure while caching. The problem is that these caches are designed to be extremely difficult and those who have found them have spent hours doing so. Putting yourself in a high-crime area for hours is not a good situation to be in. So the question is, why would a person create a separate account and only put this type of hide out there? In my opinion, the point seems to be to show the general geocacher that they hold preconceived biases toward people or areas. While I am sure this is true for every human, I am not sure the proper place to play out this type of "lesson" is in a dangerous geocaching area. Wihtout mentioning it in logs. In fact, any mention has been that the areas are ok and not the opposite. I'll just cut this point off here because it has become too tangential.

 

3. The original poster has stated he has questioned his own beliefs about the chance-vs-choice element of terrain caching. Is it really a choice if a limb breaks while you're in a tree or is that the luck of the draw? I have to disagree with him when he wonders if it's not a choice. That uncertainty is PART of the choice you make with high terrain. You cannot go into a cache expecting a physical object to hold up for eternity. That is just an inleuctable reality of our visible world (haha). There is still a major distinction between high-crime and terrain caches. High-crime areas are shown to be high-crime areas by high repeatability of problems. There may be a freak occurence where the tree breaks under your foot, but high-crime areas are deemed to be that way because of the non-random reality of danger. That, to me, is the differnce. You are at the mercy of free-thinking individuals.

 

My concern is for people who do not know the area and note a 5.0 difficulty cache that has been found by 7 user names in the first few days. Well, there were that many names because the cachers went in with the group mentality for safety. I am willing to have discussions about racial biases until the cows come home. But that topic is completely outside the realm of geocaching. What is in the realm of caching is safety.

[Most Favorite Points]

Much appreciated!

 

Glad to see it wasn't some option I missed in creating the query. Thanks!

[Most Favorite Points]

I've discussed this topic with several people and each person has a slightly different method of looking up the info, so I was wondering if anyone had a good method of figuring out which caches have the most favorite points, say, in a particular state. Pocket queries give a pretty good indication, but you are limited to a search of only 1000 caches, which obviously does not cover entire states. Perhaps this question has an easy answer and I'm just not a pocket query guru. Thanks in advance!