Jump to content

An Apology To Sandiway Searchers

Moote

By Moote
in United Kingdom and Ireland

Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Moote

+Moote

Posted
Posted

I would like to publicly apologise to the Sandiway Searchers for my recent posting on Log deletions, I don't want this to become anymore inflamed that it has already become but I would like to clearly state a position that I have cleanly thought about.

 

As the cache is on a quarry wall, and looking at mapping of the area it would be wise to place a warning on the cache page, that there is a quarry and that if visited to take the lower entrance.

 

It would only take one cacher to visit at night and somehow take a route over the top, which might cause a fatal accident. Safety should always be our prime concern when placing a Geocache, and suitable warnings given if doubt is in the mind.

 

To this end I consider that I have made amends for yesterdays postings and I look forward to seeing the cache taken out of the temporary unavailable phase and placed back to a live cache. It was never my intention to have the cache archived, I just wanted people to be aware that this location needed treating with the respect that an old quarry deserves.

 

I hope that the Sandiway Searchers accept this apology, and place a line under this matter.

 

Moote

Link to comment
Moote

+Moote

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think I should also apologies to Alan White and Cryptik Soul Crew, and any other person who feel they became embroiled in the heated discussion on here yesterday night.

 

I hope that we all can live in harmony and cache together one day.

 

Moote

Link to comment
civilised

+civilised

Posted
Posted

 

Safety should always be our prime concern when placing a Geocache, and suitable warnings given if doubt is in the mind.

 

 

Hello

 

I think this is a pleasant gesture on Moote's part - hopefully the cache setter will see it in the same way :D

 

Moving on - is safety always our prime concern when placing a cache ? I must admit that it never entered my head. If it's safe for me to put it there I assume it's safe for cachers to hunt for it.

 

My prime concern is that cache hunters should be taken to places they would not otherwise been aware of - is it different up north ? :)

 

civilised

Link to comment
Nediam

Nediam

Posted
Posted (edited)

Good on'yer Moote for the public apology, but I think you have a more than valid point.

 

I don't know the cache in question, but on a similar theme I nearly led a bunch of mates off a quarry edge in the Peak District (non caching, midnight "adventure") whilst looking for a stone circle. I had missed the path recommended to me by about 50 yards ( my path being dangerous, the recommended path - perfectly safe).

 

I missed the correct path because like a complete "wally" I went unprepared and used the wrong kind of map to follow the path.

 

A couple of years later, a young lad unfortunately fell to his death off the cliff we came very close to ourselves (no emoticon needed)

 

Although our experience was unrelated to caching, it shows how, if you blindly follow someones advice on what path to take, what kind of terrain you are in, or if you are led to believe you are "perfectly safe" you can end up in trouble!

 

I'm sure the cache setters only gave the cache a low terrain/difficulty rating as they perhaps expected everyone to approach from the "safe" direction.

 

 

Again, a bit off topic, (but still relating to caching and "dangerous" locations) I have done a cache which completely failed to mention that the recommended route would take me literally off the edge of a vary large quarry! Suffice to say I was more than a little concerned about getting the cache which was about 3 feet below the quarry edge! Perhaps more worrying was the fact that the local council or quarry owner had not even placed a safety fence or warning signs whatsoever! :)

Edited by Nediam
Link to comment
Sandiway Searchers

+Sandiway Searchers

Posted
Posted

We accept your apology and equally apologize for deleting your log. However, there are a few points we want to make. First of all, if you follow your GPS from the Irby Mill to the cache, you would never end up on the top of the quarry, There isn't a path that takes you there. The top is reached from a completely different road and I'm fairly certain there is a fence at the top, at least there was last time we walked across the top. We will check it out and if we think it is necessary we will put on a warning.

 

When we put a 1 on the terrain, we thought that was correct as you could easily take a wheelchair or pushchair to the site. I put a 3 on the difficulty as you have to step up 2 feet to reach the cache if you are over 5 foot 7inches. If you are a shorty like me than you would have to take another step which puts you about 4 foot up on a wide ledge and lots of rocks to hold on to if you wish. We have just been to the site and measured. We have also done a full "Risk Assestment" and now now think that the 3 should be reduced to a 2 or 2 1/2. If I put a 3 on the terrain, then cachers with wheelchairs and pushchairs would think they couldn't go. Maybe someone could advise me on this.

 

Another point, we brought cachers to this area, because we think it is a very interesting and beautiful site. It's not a well known area unless you live near here. It's not just an old quarry without any interest.

 

We took a lot of time to plan our caches and we think it is a very good series. I look forward to any advice, so we can get our ratings right. We were very experienced walkers and have climbed Snowden, three peaks, and the Howgills in our younger days. We do know what danger is. We are very responsible cachers and would never put anyone in danger. On saying that, it's gone on long enough. We supposed to be doing this for enjoyment and not for arguement sake.

Link to comment
Nediam

Nediam

Posted
Posted (edited)
I put a 3 on the difficulty as you have to step up 2 feet to reach the cache if you are over 5 foot 7inches. If you are a shorty like me than you would have to take another step which puts you about 4 foot up on a wide ledge and lots of rocks to hold on to if you wish. We have just been to the site and measured.  We have also done a full "Risk Assestment" and now now think that the 3 should be reduced to a 2 or 2 1/2. If I put a 3 on the terrain, then cachers with wheelchairs and pushchairs would think they couldn't go. Maybe someone could advise me on this.

If you have to step up 2 feet to get to the cache - surely people in wheel chairs won't be able to do the cache? I think a disabled cacher would be very disapointed to get to the site - only to find they can't reach the actual cache?

 

I'm under the impression that if a cache is "wheelchair/diabled" friendly - then the person in the chair should be able to get to the actual cache without having to get out of the chair? (you did ask for advice :bad::) )

 

From your detailed description of the site, it sounds like a 2 or 2.5 terrain rating is about right. :D

 

Edited to add - Don't forget, not all people will approach from the recommended route :D

Edited by Nediam
Link to comment
purple_pineapple

+purple_pineapple

Posted
Posted
Edited to add - Don't forget, not all people will approach from the recommended route :bad:

nice to see disputes can be aired and then solved amicably! :) Just adding myself that if there is a recommended route, that tends to be a guarentee I'll miss it and find myself 200 feet up a steep hill!! :D I really must learn not to follow that needle blindly!

 

I must confess to be confused about the wheelchair accessible part - IMHO, that only applies if the final cache can be reached from the wheelchair, and it doesn't sound like that is possible. I'm sure the sandiways can clairfy though!

 

:D

Link to comment
Moote

+Moote

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Using the ClayJar Cache rating system which is available on the initial pages when you first setup the cache, here is the results which I get from answering the questions.

 

1. Is specialized equipment required?

  • No

2 .Is an overnight stay likely?

  • No

3. What is the length of the hike?

  • Less than 1/2 mile
    Less than 1 km

4. What is the trail like?

  • Other trail types
    Could be gravel, sand, mud, etc. May be an animal trail. If you're riding a bike, it had better be a mountain bike.

5. Is the path bushy or overgrown?

  • Some light overgrowth
    An adult could step over or around this.

6. What is the terrain elevation like?

  • Basically flat
    Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.
     
    But might boarder on:
     
  • Some elevation changes
    Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.

7. How easy is it to find the cache?

  • Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location.

And I get the results as follows

 

Difficulty rating: 3

 

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

Terrain rating: 3

 

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

 

The lowest I can get the rating considering boarder line cases in the system is a Terrain rating lowers to 2.5

 

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

 

But personally I think it is not suitable for younger people to undertake this without an Adult actually being at hand and getting the cache.

 

I know Clayjar is not perfect but it gives a far better objective indication than a personal subjective approach. I always use Clayjar with the seasons/weather variations in mind, and rate a cache for possible muddy conditions.

 

Moote

Edited by Moote
Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted

Also IMHO, when grading a cache I assume that Terrain 1 is wheelchair accessible: and that means the cache box can be reached by a wheelchair user without extra help. But perhaps this warrants a new thread!

 

Back to the OT, Moote has obviously done the right thing with his unreserved

apology - good man! And plaudits to the Sandiway Searchers for accepting it.

 

HH

Link to comment
Sandiway Searchers

+Sandiway Searchers

Posted
Posted (edited)

Cache is back on. I think I have stated more clearly about the terrain. I have also stated that the cache is at the bottom of the quarry even though there isn't a way up there any where near the site. I understand a little more about wheelchairs now. Hope it doesn't stop cachers pushing wheelchairs to sites if they have a partner who can retrieve the last bit. My Mum was wheelchair bound for most of her life and I know she would have loved going even if she couldn't do the last bit. Thanks for all your help. I now think that should close it, we're just going over the same thing.

Edited by Sandiway Searchers
Link to comment
HazelS

+HazelS

Posted
Posted

Moote...

 

Please can we lock this thread now...?!

 

I've kept out of this one since it involves my parents, a cache I've not done and another cacher whom I have met...

 

However, it seems to be taking over life in the Sandiway Searcher household!!!

Link to comment
Belplasca

+Belplasca

Posted
Posted

I recently received a comment about one of the caches that I have taken over from a very plucky wheelchair user to the effect that they thiought the cache was dangerous for wheelchair users.

 

I went and had a look, and, although a wheelchair user could easily grab the cahe as far as location is concerned, it would actually be very difficult due to the slope of the path at that point - a slope that ends at a canal!

 

So I put a note on the cache page. Simple.

 

Bob Aldridge

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...