Jump to content

Plane Crash Sites


Recommended Posts

I accidently posted this in the proposals area. I think it warrents some discussion.

original topic

 

I am a geocacher and an amatuer aviation archaeologist. As a general rule, plane crash sites are protected sites. The aviation archaeologist snob within me doesn't like the idea of posting exact coordinates for these areas. As far as I know (not very far!  ), there is no aviation archaeology site that lists these locations (coords), for what I think are obvious reasons. If you bring the general public to these places, they will mess with the wreckage, or worse- take pieces. I know of at least one geocache by a wreck that has been archived due to the "new traffic." Now, the cache itself was hidden within the wreckage, which obviously is not a good idea. I think a better idea would have been to hide the cache down trail from the wreck, with a note and coords to the wreck, further down trail. Cachers with an interest can continue down the trail, others would head back.

From what I can tell, this is all still in the learning stages, so sorry about the long winded rant. As Waymarking is essentially geocaching, we cannot afford to have people getting the wrong idea. A quick perusal of categories shows cemeteries, cave drawing/fossil areas as ideas for waymarks. These catagories are already under fire for geocachers. Is a person holding a GPS a cacher or a waymarker? How is the outside observer to know? I guess all I'm trying to say is that we have to be VERY careful about how we go about some of these.

At the very least, the crash site pages should have the standard, " do not remove or disturb any wreckage from this site," or something to that effect.

That is all, flame away! 

 

B-18 cache

 

This is the cache in question.

 

Edit: to add links

Edited by Two Geeks and a GPS
Link to comment
Not all crash sites are protected. If its on public land, and there are no signs or fences, that seems to me its open to the public to do whatever they want

 

I am NOT an expert. There are all sorts of things that are on public land w/o fences that we cannot "do whatever they want," with.

I have not read the entire National Historic Preservation Act, but these types of places (especially military) must be covered. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. The cache you listed was a virtual.

1) There is nothing hidden in the wreckage, so cachers don't HAVE to disturb anything. It doesn't mean that they are not "disturbing" the wreckage. The land mangers may notice an increase in damage, they just have nothing to blame it on

2) There is nothing for any land manager to find and blame the damage on.

The cache I linked was found by the land manager who put 2 and 2 together with the damage he/she'd been seeing over the years. I've already stated that the hide was less than desirable.

 

My thinking is not limited to crash sites. I was just saying that we need to really think about the "guidelines."

 

Publishing the coords doesn't change that.

 

As cachers we have said many times, "brought me to a place I'd never see if not for geocaching." Publishing the coords brings more people to the place...period. Most will be respectful, some will not. They give us all a bad name.

Edited by Two Geeks and a GPS
Link to comment

Two Geeks and a GPS, I'm afraid that you are pissing against the wind. To get any category archived after Groundspeak have decided that it is OK to go ahead with, you will have to get someone in an official capacity to ask for it to be archived, as I am afraid your opinions don't mean Rat All. :laughing:

 

People have concerns about military installations, but it has all fell upon deaf ears.

Link to comment
Two Geeks and a GPS, I'm afraid that you are pissing against the wind. To get any category archived after Groundspeak have decided that it is OK to go ahead with, you will have to get someone in an official capacity to ask for it to be archived, as I am afraid your opinions don't mean Rat All. :laughing:

 

People have concerns about military installations, but it has all fell upon deaf ears.

Just because someone from Groundspeak doesn't speak up, doesn't mean that they are not reading the thread.

 

Take a look at the Waymarking Category Proposals forum and you will see that there are a lot of categories that they are not being added to Waymarking, for various reasons. Categories are not added blindly, there is some thought put to the approval process. This doens't mean that once the decision to add a category has been made that it the category can never be removed. However, I seriously doubt that Groundspeak will repeatly add and remove the same category. If a category is ever removed it will, most likely, never return. I would hope a lot of discussion and consideration, way more than just 24 hours *cough* *cough*, would go in to the removal of any category.

Link to comment

Take a look at the Waymarking Category Proposals forum and you will see that there are a lot of categories that they are not being added to Waymarking, for various reasons.

Actually you should probably first read the pinned topics in this forum and the other one before making these observations.

Link to comment

Take a look at the Waymarking Category Proposals forum and you will see that there are a lot of categories that they are not being added to Waymarking, for various reasons.

Actually you should probably first read the pinned topics in this forum and the other one before making these observations.

Even with a taboo rating I can't see every waymark category ever proposed being adding. Sorry for the wrong tense.

Link to comment

I posted a comment on the original thread, and I'll post here as well.

 

For categories like this, it's very likely the sites may become victims of Waymarking's potential popularity. For the civilian site that I posted, it is mentioned by several trail guides and it is not fenced off. It is located relatively deep in the open preserve, the access trail is quite windy and narrow, and the remaining wreckage is too large to "carry home."

 

I think the manager of the category should consider something proactive so sites don't become archived AFTER the damage is done. For that reason, I think the concern is valid.

Link to comment

A similar thread appeared in the geocaching forum some time ago. I made this statement there, and I'll do so again, here.

 

If I ever accidently send my Tomahawk into the trees. After the investigation is over, feel free to trash out the bits. I'd rather that my plane doesn't remain litter.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...