I Think I Just Tattle-tailed......

[+Cache Heads]

So... we went out to grab this FTF today and realized that the 4.5 star terrain was because it was on an island in the middle of a busy L.A. street and the only way to get to it was to jay-walk (). Of course, I went for it, having jay-walked about a billion times in my life, and when I logged it online I eluded to the situation. 10 minutes later the cache was archived . Should I have handled that differently, like contacted the owner privately or something?

 

I feel like a cache narc !

[+ChileHead]

Souinds like this should never have been approved in the first place.

[+Airmapper]

I personally dislike caches that put you in that kind of situation, but don't feel bad about it. The cache owner could fully expect something like that could happen. If it wasn't you, someone else would have said something, and may have not been as nice about it..

[nickie218]

I've heard of people doing much worse things then jaywalk to get to the cache, I would be surprised if that was the reason it was archived.

[+The Leprechauns]

Souinds like this should never have been approved in the first place.

Google maps put the cache in a perfectly plausible spot, north of the busy street and certainly not in the little island between the lanes. So, studying the maps and the cache page, which listing guideline did the cache violate, such that it should never have been *published*?

[Team Firebird]

if caches in nuclear reactors aren't archived, then why should this one be? It was probably some other reason, or the approver didn't like it. If the dificulty rating is that high, and you were warned on the cache page, there should be no problem with it.

[+Cache Heads]

I've heard of people doing much worse things then jaywalk to get to the cache, I would be surprised if that was the reason it was archived.

 

I didn't actually mention the jay-walking-- I just said the cache might be a bit controversial because of the questionable route to GZ. I assume that's what alarmed the approver.

[+Cache Heads]

Souinds like this should never have been approved in the first place.

Google maps put the cache in a perfectly plausible spot, north of the busy street and certainly not in the little island between the lanes.

 

This is true. The coords at the cache location had me in the spot shown on the Google Map. I needed the hint to get me to the island.... (sounds like LOST )

[+Confucius' Cat]

Satellite map looks like it is in the plants in a parking lot. No reason to be concerned from the map.

I reported one a while back that had the coords leading to an interstate median (coords wrong) and the basic conclusion was "let the cacher beware".

 

Highways, where thousnads of cars go by per day are not as dangerous as rr tracks that get one train a month.

[+The Herd]

I probably would have done the same thing. I know that I for one appreciate informative logs, so that I know what I am in for. We just did one a few weeks ago where the neighbor has been threatening to pull guns on the cachers. Had I read the logs first, I probably would have avoided it...especially if the kids were with me!!!

[+Robespierre]

Assuming, from your description, that there is no LEGAL way to get to the cache, it should be archived. If there is a legal way to cross, then people who get hurt earned it........ but, perhaps, it still would be best to archive it - we don't need another cache THAT bad.

 

As to YOUR feelings........ what's your problem? You did fine.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Gotta love the ol' side of the highway micros

[+briansnat]

I probably would have done the same thing. I know that I for one appreciate informative logs, so that I know what I am in for. We just did one a few weeks ago where the neighbor has been threatening to pull guns on the cachers. Had I read the logs first, I probably would have avoided it...especially if the kids were with me!!!

 

I would hope the local reviewer has been made aware of that situation.

[+BigWhiteTruck]

You shouldn't feel bad about what happened. Caches that promote illegal activity put geocaching in a negative light. It doesn't matter that it's something as minor as jaywalking. Negative focus on geocachers' activities have hurt us in the past. While you or I or any sane person may downplay jaywalking, someone who is intent on hurting the sport for their own agenda only has to say "you had to dangerously cross a busy highway with cars whipping by at high speeds" to bend the ears of all kinds of alarmists. I think it's a good policy to archive a cache that has logs like that, it keeps Groundspeak safe.

 

Here's some more: Illegal activity in logs

[+The Leprechauns]

B.W.T., thanks for the link to that concise summary of the issue. One of the quoted logs was left on a cache that I own. I didn't even delete the find, but chose instead to add a note to the page. Believe it or not, the log owner flamed *me* for reacting to the log that bragged about their behavior.

 

Sometimes attitude adjustments are needed. It is by community pressure, rather than by rules and guidelines, that this is best accomplished.

[+Kit Fox]

I've heard of people doing much worse things then jaywalk to get to the cache, I would be surprised if that was the reason it was archived.

 

I didn't actually mention the jay-walking-- I just said the cache might be a bit controversial because of the questionable route to GZ. I assume that's what alarmed the approver.

 

Keep in mind that you may have done nothing wrong. It could well have been another cacher, who has a good relationship with "WCA", who privately advised him of the cache in question. There are plenty of cachers that report dangerous caches to approvers in private.

[+tozainamboku]

The issue is not that it is dangerous to cross Wilshire Blvd. to get to this cache, but that it is illegal. The police are probably not going to accept the excuse, "Officer, I was looking for a geocache". I'm a little ticked, because if I knew I could hide a 4.5 terrain cache in this area, I would have a long time ago.

[+Pablo Mac]

I personally dislike caches that put you in that kind of situation...

An inanimate object (cache) cannot "put" you into any kind of situation. You decide whether to put yourself into a situation, such as, in this case, jaywalking to a traffic island. I would have considered attacking this one at night, so as to not attract attention from drivers zipping by.

 

Heck, a fair number of my caches make this one seem like a Barney episode, but those caches aren't "putting" anybody at risk because each cacher decides for themselves how much physical and/or legal risk they are willing to accept to find a cache. You can always turn your back and choose not to go for a cache that gives you butterflies and sweaty palms.

[+Team Cotati]

So... we went out to grab this FTF today and realized that the 4.5 star terrain was because it was on an island in the middle of a busy L.A. street and the only way to get to it was to jay-walk (). Of course, I went for it, having jay-walked about a billion times in my life, and when I logged it online I eluded to the situation. 10 minutes later the cache was archived . Should I have handled that differently, like contacted the owner privately or something?

 

I feel like a cache narc !

 

I was wondering, have you thought about getting the story straight from the "horse's mouth" by asking the local reviewer directly? Or is endless speculation the preferred method? I mean if your theory is correct it appears as though you have a reviewer who is watching his area of responsibility pretty closely already.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Team Cotati

[+zoltig]

 

The coords for that cache are in the middle of the pic.

[+Pablo Mac]

My first impression is that the cache owner didn't take enough time to set an accurate waypoint. How on earth did the OP find the cache with that kind of inaccuracy?

[+Airmapper]

I personally dislike caches that put you in that kind of situation...

An inanimate object (cache) cannot "put" you into any kind of situation. You decide whether to put yourself into a situation, such as, in this case, jaywalking to a traffic island. I would have considered attacking this one at night, so as to not attract attention from drivers zipping by.

 

Heck, a fair number of my caches make this one seem like a Barney episode, but those caches aren't "putting" anybody at risk because each cacher decides for themselves how much physical and/or legal risk they are willing to accept to find a cache. You can always turn your back and choose not to go for a cache that gives you butterflies and sweaty palms.

 

I don't know that a cache is quite an "inanimate object." Most inanimate objects are not published publicly with the intent of others to go get them. For example, I doubt most normal people would consider crossing a busy road just to get on a traffic island. Since you cannot know everything about a cache before going, once you are there you are faced with the situation, and must weigh the smiley on your find count against the risk involved.

 

I quite agree with your second paragraph, I've turned down about 3 caches one day because of this. I see no reason to complain because it was me who didn't want to go there. Had the traffic been slow, I probably would have gone for it. I "personally" dislike caches that put you in a hairy situation, but I don't disapprove of there existence.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Airmapper

[+Pablo Mac]

I don't know that a cache is quite an "inanimate object."

in·an·i·mate: Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms.

 

Since you cannot know everything about a cache before going, once you are there you are faced with the situation, and must weigh the smiley on your find count against the risk involved.

 

I quite agree with your second paragraph...

 

It looks like we agree on the whole enchilada, not just my second paragraph. That's ok; I'm used to people being hesitant to admit they agree with me.

[+Airmapper]

It looks like we agree on the whole enchilada, not just my second paragraph. That's ok; I'm used to people being hesitant to admit they agree with me.

 

Oh.....ummmmmm. okay....................... I agree.

[+KKTH3]

We have one park in town that always made me wonder. The name is CY Islands park, and as you can guess it is a series of 4 or 5 15 foot wide medians in the middle of 4-lane CY Avenue. There are no sidewalks or crosswalks or any logical legal access points to any of these islands and no stopsigns or stoplights to restrict the traffic on CY Avenue in this area. In fact, the only clues one would have that this is actually park land is the huge City of Casper Parks and Recreation Department signs declaring the area as CY Islands Park and one other odd object on each island..... a huge concrete picnic table! I've never seen anyone having their lunch at any of these picnic tables or people playing frisbee there or walking their dogs or any other recreational activities, but I have often wondered if anyone has recieved a jaywalking ticket for using that particular park.

 

So far, I have passed on the idea of placing a cache in that particular park. I have a number of better places to bring people to rather than there.

[+Cyclometh]

if caches in nuclear reactors aren't archived, then why should this one be? It was probably some other reason, or the approver didn't like it. If the dificulty rating is that high, and you were warned on the cache page, there should be no problem with it.

 

Except the one you refer to is legal (has the approval of local LEA) and you can get the proper gear to do it safely.

 

It's not legal to jaywalk and there's not much you can put on your body to protect you from a car on a busy street.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

So... we went out to grab this FTF today and realized that the 4.5 star terrain was because it was on an island in the middle of a busy L.A. street and the only way to get to it was to jay-walk (). Of course, I went for it, having jay-walked about a billion times in my life, and when I logged it online I eluded to the situation. 10 minutes later the cache was archived . Should I have handled that differently, like contacted the owner privately or something?

 

I feel like a cache narc !

 

In this case, I feel that you did exactly the right thing. I suspect that your local reviewer, much like our Maryland reviewer and many other reviewers, automatically watchlists all caches which he/she approves, to keep an eye out during the early days of the cache's existence for just such unexpected "surprises". Thus, the reviewer saw your FTF note, and likely decided to disable the cache until the hider answers some straight and hard questions.

 

And, my personal opinion on this cache: In this case, I personally feel that the cache should remain archived and disabled, given the facts of the case, unless perhaps the following conditions were met:

• Correction of waypoint coordinates to achieve far greater accuracy/tightness
  
• Raise Terrain rating to 5
  
• Raise Difficulty Rating to 5
  
• Mark "Not for Children" on cache listing page
  
• Assign appropriate danger attribute icons on cache listing page
  
• Add appropriate warnings and caveats to cache listing page.
  

Well, that is just my own personal opinion...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

if caches in nuclear reactors aren't archived, then why should this one be? It was probably some other reason, or the approver didn't like it. If the dificulty rating is that high, and you were warned on the cache page, there should be no problem with it.

 

If you are referring to our Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations, the final stage of that cache is located on publicly-accessible property, the cache placement has full approval of all relevant law enforcement and administrative authorities, the cache placement has the full approval of the geocaching.com reviewer for the relevant state, and seeking the third stage is quite safe if the seeker uses appropriate climbing gear and protective safety gear (i.e., Tyvek protective bunny suit, respirator, radiation monitors, etc.), and even without the protective safety gear, a brief excursion of perhaps one-half hour into that building would not really be particuarly hazardous in terms of the exposure to radiation and toxic chemical waste.

 

To put this all in perspective, please realize that there are some caches located in the middle of sewage (not storm, but sewage) waste ponds. Or for another perspective, one of my prospective Psycho Urban Cache placements is a multi-stage cache located -- in complete and absolute darkness -- along the length of a labyrinthine 5 mile raging underground river which courses deep below the streets of a major East Coast city, replete with three 20 foot waterfalls, any one of which would be deadly in the darkness. Another possible siting in the works involves using a boat to access a half-sunken ferryboat (approaching it by land is technically possible but would result in immediate arrest for trespassing on private city port authority property) and then using grappling hooks and ropes to climb the rotting and rusting structure 28 feet so that it may be entered, and then descending into the bowels of the rotting ship to find a cache container.

[+Pablo Mac]

Raise Terrain rating to 5

5-Star? What special equipment is necessary here (besides guts)? That would make some of mine and many I have found...uh...6-star caches...? This one is not more than a 4-star terrain cache.

Mark "Not for Children" on cache listing page

Assign appropriate danger attribute icons on cache listing page

Add appropriate warnings and caveats to cache listing page.

Three great ideas for this cache.

 

This cache would give me pause, but, from what I can see from a distance, I have hunted, placed, and helped place riskier ones. If danger bites me on a cache, it's my fault for going for it, not the cache owner's, and definitely not the fault of the cache itself (in case anybody else wants to attach verbs to inanimate objects).

[+Harry Dolphin]

I suspect that there's more to this than meets the eye. I would be surprised if approvers keep a watch on all their newly-approved caches. Geocaching is trying to maintain good PR, which is good for all of us.

I will admit to having run across a major highway to find a cache, but there were legal ways to get there (I have no idea how, though), since we were passed by joggers. Of course, I have also run across major highways hiking along the Appalachian Trail. (The Taconic State Parkway is four lanes of cars travelling at 55 MPH. That took twenty minutes to cross!) (Then again, there are a lot of dangerous places on the AT.)

We are responsible for our own actions, modern legal theories notwithstanding.

I did recommend archival for a cache that was legally placed, when it was placed, but which ended up behind a cyclone fence after DOT finished repair work. Climbing cyclone fences is not within guidelines.

[+Team Cotati]

I suspect that there's more to this than meets the eye. I would be surprised if approvers keep a watch on all their newly-approved caches. Geocaching is trying to maintain good PR, which is good for all of us.

I will admit to having run across a major highway to find a cache, but there were legal ways to get there (I have no idea how, though), since we were passed by joggers. Of course, I have also run across major highways hiking along the Appalachian Trail. (The Taconic State Parkway is four lanes of cars travelling at 55 MPH. That took twenty minutes to cross!) (Then again, there are a lot of dangerous places on the AT.)

We are responsible for our own actions, modern legal theories notwithstanding.

I did recommend archival for a cache that was legally placed, when it was placed, but which ended up behind a cyclone fence after DOT finished repair work. Climbing cyclone fences is not within guidelines.

 

I'd hate to learn that you have re-read this posting.

[+HkrChris]

"Illegal" and "Risky" are two totally different things. For the good of geocaching everywhere, any placement that requires illegal activity to retrieve should be archived.

 

Note that I said REQUIRES illegal activity! If there are less obvious legal means to retrieve, especially if that is part of the challenge, then it should be noted on the cache page that there is a legal way to retrieve it (even if it leaves it to the cacher to figure it out).