Jump to content

Lack Of Safety Informatio On Geocaching Web Sites

Recommended Posts

please read this site here SITE!

this is the least i pack every time i go out and yeah i have had to use it all in the woods after getting stuck..


I am a member of the boyscouts for over 14 years

A member of the clatsop county search and rescue team

An emt-b for the state of oregon for 2 years


as jeremy said Quit ranting on about it and think!!!!!



ok i'm done


rant on :unsure::unsure:

Link to comment


If geocaching were a theme park I can see this. A theme park is holding out that their grounds and caches are fit for the use. Thus when they charged you an entry fee you would expect well maintained grounds, safe caches, no quicksand, or head hunters, and that the place is fit for business. Just like Disney.


Groundspeak and cache owners do not charge, they don't warrantee, and they are not in a position of saying "our premises" is fit for business, nor have they ever said that. There is no contract for seeking a cache.


In that light Idaho (among other enlightened states) if a property owner allows the use of their lands to others, as long as they do not charge for that use they are not liable for injuries to the people who take advantage of the use of the land.


If you look at the details, Groundspeak does not approve caches. They publish them. They do not charge for access to cache information, they charge for features that simplify life as a cache seeker. There are other examples. The bottom line is that things are not nearly as cut and dry as it might appear for liablity. Of course if things were perfectly cut and dry there would not be lawyers to begin with.


Don't underestimate a clever lawyer.

Groundspeak publishes the cache listings thereby approving their dissemination to the general public, thereby accepting some of the responsibility. You can say what you like but I bet there is a lawyer who could float that.


Although this has gotten somewhat off topic.


I believe that if people have to look for the information then it will be better remembered.

How come it is called common sense if it is not so common ?

Edited by tttedzeins
Link to comment

I understand that the site has it's necessary disclaimer and that's all well and good. But I think it is up to them to make it very easy for the person placing the cache to make it as clear as possible what the dangers of that cache might be. And the responsibility of the person placing the cache to make sure they've made any possible dangers very clear.

The site provides a blank cache description box which allows the cache hider to enter an unlimited amount of text to describe the risks. The hider is in the best position to know these risks, having researched and visited the placement site.


The site provides tools such as cache attributes (hunting area, dangerous area, not for children, etc.). The site provides a rating system for terrain and difficulty.


What, specifically, would you like the site to do, which is not already being done? I don't think they'll send a guide to lead you around to all the caches.


double quote - "What, specifically, would you like the site to do, which is not already being done? I don't think they'll send a guide to lead you around to all the caches."


Well that was overly snarky now wasn't it?


Try rereading the post without that chip on your shoulder and see if it reads any clearer.

It might not, I'm not the best writer in the world. However, I was merely trying to state that we are all equally responsible in being safe, the site that publishes the cache locations/descriptions, the people who list them and the people who try to find them. It wasn't a criticism with the site at all, and if something I wrote personally offended you that was not the intention (never even met ya).


I had a disappointing experience with my first cache hunt. What I described as my problem could have been remedied by the hider and no one else. ( I was new, I now recognize that I could be being sent into hunting areas, and so I now do make sure before I set out to find a cache, that it's a no hunting area first.)


Again, I have no idea why this personally offends you and elicited such a snarky response. However I never asked for "a guide to lead me around to all the caches". Nor did I intend to offend anyone.


My point now is the same as it originally was. Whether or not anyone agrees with me - we ARE all responsible for our actions. If I tell someone 'Go find this cool cache at these coordinates" and they got shot by a hunter because they didn't do enough research to find out if there was hunting there or not - It may be the cachers responsibilty, but it's also mine for not telling him that there was hunting in that area. The fact that they didn't take proper precautions for themselves doesn't erase the fact that I didn't give them information I should have before sending them there.


--I've reread this and it still doesn't read clearly enough ( I tend to ramble) - I wasn't criticizing the site when I said it was the sites responsibility to make it as easy as possible ...etc. I don't even know how easy it actually is because I have never listed a cache! I was just saying that the responsibility existed, because I was getting the impression that some believed that safety was the sole responsibility of the person trying to find the cache and that all the site MUST do is the bare -legally required- minimum.


Hopefully this makes more sense and is less offensive. I'm going to nurse my sprained ankle and maybe ban my typing fingers from this forum, lol ;)

Link to comment
Well that was overly snarky now wasn't it?


I for one didn't see it as snarky. He was trying to make a point. If you think specific changes need making, then recommend them. It is very difficult to come up with even general 'general safety' information, as what is true in one area isn't going to be true elsewhere (or may be true, but not important). Whole books are written on safety, proposing to cover something like that is pretty difficult.


What he was trying to do is put the boot on your foot. Rather than just saying 'we need to change' what he's asking for, is exactly *how* things need to change. *what* needs adding? And don't just say safety information. that is too general, we need something specific.

Link to comment

Hey, I'm going to sue GC because they didn't tell me I needed to check the oil in the truck before I went caching!


They also didn't tell me to turn off the iron before I left on a three day cache trip.


Further, they didn't warn me that I could slam my finger in the door of the gas station that I stopped at to buy batteries in.


Finally, and most critically, they didn't warn me that eating batteries is generally not a good thing. <_<<_<

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...