Jump to content

Extremely dangerous cache....how do I get it removed?


Jusl89

Recommended Posts

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6d-5bc9c204ad53

 

The cache linked to above should definitely be archived...every single person who has attempted it has sustained some level of injury!!!

 

Geocachers who attempt it without reading the warnings or paying attention to the the D/T ratings or being mindful of the attributes or reading the logs of past attempts could be in for a surprise!!!

 

Allowing people to enter into dangerous activities is...

 

 

 

GREAT!!!

 

as long as they enter into the adventure having been made aware of the potential risks...

 

Jamie - NFA

Link to comment

Yes, geocaching in cacti can be very dangerous....especially if you go and forget to wear the correct footwear.

 

3dbb1935-856c-4f5c-b666-27b90e116b84.jpg

 

SANDALS while Geocaching???

No ankle support!

You could twist your ankle, fall down on the cactus, get an infection and DIE!!!

 

You need to take the dangers of caching more seriously!

Edited by Woodbutcher68
Link to comment

Maybe all Geocaching should be banned. You could breathe paint fumes while painting a container or get a papercut while putting the logbook in it, (danger of infection), not to mention the dangers that exist while traveling to the cache location, ie. traffic, muggers, exhaust fumes, falling meteors or space stations, etc.

How many people were hurt looking for this cache??

It's only funny 'til somebody gets hurt,

then it's hilarious!

 

Dang. You had me feeling smug. I know of only one cactus cache in the northeast (and it's a virtual). There's plenty of prickly pear at Sandy Hook, but that's NPS. Now I have to worry about falling space stations?? Is there an attribute that I can put on my cache page for 'falling space stations'?

Link to comment

Yes, geocaching in cacti can be very dangerous....especially if you go and forget to wear the correct footwear.

 

3dbb1935-856c-4f5c-b666-27b90e116b84.jpg

 

SANDALS while Geocaching???

No ankle support!

You could twist your ankle, fall down on the cactus, get an infection and DIE!!!

My husband likes to up the terrain rating as much as possible. Otherwise, the caches aren't worth finding. :anibad:

Link to comment

OK, I've fought the urge long enough.

 

Here is a thread that Jusl89 started on Extreme Geocaching, in which he claims to be from Eire, PA (His spelling, not mine).

 

I was wondering if anyone does any extreme Geocaching, like putting caches on the sides of cliffs or in a steel foundry or something.

Looks like somebody was on a fishing expedition, but lost interest and moved onto more fertile waters.

 

Now onto the death by cactus thread...

 

Why does anyone from Pennsylvania care about killer cacti in Arizona? Maybe, with your 1000 unlogged caches, you could enlighten we humble servants of the frog.

 

You are wrong because it DOES need to be removed. Someone could get seriously hurt trying to find this cache, and they wouldn't even know it.

 

So you are saying I can hide a cache with coordinates that are near train tracks and not tell anyone that a train may come and hit them at any time? You may want to consider changing your policy.

 

If you were allowed to hide a cache near the trains, the cacher would notice that there are tracks there and would deductively reason that there is the potential for a train to come by as is the case with the lovely cache you have brought to our attention. There are cactus and a road nearby, any reasonable person would notice said items and use caution when near them.

 

I'll bet you are the same person that they created "Caution: contents may be hot" labels for the coffee cups at McDonalds.

 

Think about it like this. I could open up an ice cream shop. But my ice cream shop puts razor blades in the ice cream. It's up to you to assesss the risk whether to buy ice cream or not. So you cut your mouth on my ice cream. You go to the police. The police say "Hey buddy, its up to YOU to decide whehther u want to buy ice cream from this guy."

I believe you have answered your own question and have created a fictitious account in order to come here and create problems. It is ashame that you have had to hide behind a mask and are too cowardly to come here and start problems openly. :anibad:

 

Have a nice day.

 

-Jim

Link to comment

So why ARE caches near railroad tracks banned? I assume it's because of the danger factor; or is it because of the looking-like-a-terrorist thing?

 

I think the OP has brought up an interesting point. If caches near RR tracks are banned because of the danger involved, then I'm actually surprised that GC.com HASN"T banned caches that are too near freeways and other fast-traffic areas.

Link to comment

This cache is much more dangerous, should it not be allowed?

 

If you don't tell them that they may be killed, yes it should be removed.

 

ok... I have not made it terribly far into this thread yet, but I am getting sorely irritated with this OP.

 

You could get killed every single day when you walk to your car to go to work. When you pick up the phone in a rainstorm (bad example, I know...)... falling down the steps in your own home.

 

People make the CHOICE to seek caches...smart people read the cache page, see three stars, and think, Ok, a little caution is warranted here. IGNORANT people think "how can I remove this cache"...and cause irritation and angst among the caching community. If you don't like it...IGNORE it or don't play the game. simple as that. :anibad:

Link to comment

Just the other day, I had to use a 2-iron (golf club) to remove a cache from a large patch of cactus. In reality, this cache should have been listed as a "5" for difficulty because noone can use a 2-iron well. I took my chances and pulled off the "shot" but it was touch-and-go there for a minute. If I had sliced/hooked that retrieval, who knows what might have happened!!

Amature. A real cacher would have used a 4 iron.

Link to comment

I would normally agree with everyone on here and disagree with Jusl89 but the problem is not that the cache should be removed but the cache listing should somehow reflect this danger.

 

Besides the fact that there is no mention or warning, the owner gave this a terrain of 1.5!!! Maybe the terrain itself really is easy but if he/she is not going to mention this hazard, then maybe the terrain level should reflect this. All the other examples people give on here either note some hazard in the listing and/or have a terrain level of 4 or 5! That is the real problem here.....

 

We usually cache with small children (ages 5 and 3) and carefully try to gauge a cache to see if it is safe for them. For example, we rarely will do a cache with a terrain level over 2.5 (though admittedly some owners misgauge their caches; we have seen "3's" for which it appears the only reason it got that level was a small amount of bushwacking, and "1.5's" that actually had some steep-ish terrain) and try to review the cache listing carefully for any potential hazards.

 

We also think this way as cache owners as well. We adopted a "kids-oriented cache" (per the description) because it was in poor shape and the owner moved to the West Coast. A cacher was kind enough to report poison ivy. We also noticed that conditions changed (lots of large downed trees to climb and especially that the stream "grew" from recent rains to permantly require wading boots to cross without falling down/getting very wet). While normally we would just up the terrain from a "2" to a "3-3.5" and warn of this, because the listing specifically encourages this as a "kid's cache" we decided to archive and move it. We hate seeing "1.5" caches that turn out to be borderline unsafe for small children but we don't know as nothing hints at that until you get there.

 

I agree that while the hazard itself doesn't warrant removing this cache, the description of the listing does require a change.

 

Jusl89, I would say try to contact the admin for the state this cache is in and see what his/her opinion is. What I think people here are not realizing is that the wrong person who does get hurt, etc. because there's nothing warning it will sue Groundspeak or something or give the sport a lot of bad press, and we don't want that now, do we.... :anibad:

Edited by HaLiJuSaPa
Link to comment

 

I for one am entertained. :D Mostly by this: <Edited by moderator to remove potty language.> :anibad:B)

 

Yeah, but I can't imagine Keystone's gonna find it entertaining to have to keep doing that...... B)

You know me well. :o But please feel free to continue discussing this very important issue.

 

I like Keystone. He's my hero. :D

Link to comment

I would normally agree with everyone on here and disagree with Jusl89 but the problem is not that the cache should be removed but the cache listing should reflect this danger.

 

Besides the fact that there is no mention or warning, the owner gave this a terrain of 1.5!!! Maybe the terrain itself really is easy but if he/she is not going to mention this hazard, then maybe the terrain level should reflect this.

 

We usually cache with small children (ages 5 and 3) and carefully try to gauge a cache to see if it is safe for them. For example, we rarely will do a cache with a terrain level over 2.5 (though admittedly some owners misgauge their caches; we have seen "3's" for which it appears the only reason it got that level was a small amount of bushwacking, and "1.5's" that actually had some steep-ish terrain) and try to review the cache listing carefully for any potential hazards.

 

We also think this way as cache owners as well. We adopted a "kids-oriented cache" (per the description) because it was in poor shape and the owner moved to the West Coast. A cacher was kind enough to report poison ivy. We also noticed that conditions changed (lots of large downed trees to climb and especially that the stream "grew" from recent rains to permantly require wading boots to cross without falling down/getting very wet). While normally we would just up the terrain from a "2" to a "3-3.5" and warn of this, because the listing specifically encourages this as a "kid's cache" we decided to archive and move it. We hate seeing "1.5" caches that turn out to be borderline unsafe for small children but we don't know as nothing hints at that until you get there.

 

I agree that while the hazard itself doesn't warrant removing this cache, the description of the listing does require a change.

 

Jusl89, I would say try to contact the admin for the state this cache is in and see what his/her opinion is. What I think people here are not realizing is that the wrong person who does get hurt, etc. because there's nothing warning it will sue Groundspeak or something or give the sport a lot of bad press, and we don't want that now, do we.... :anibad:

 

not every cache is kid friendly...and not all caches are aptly rated. As a responsible cacher, you MUST take those factors into consideration and when you arrive at a cache location, determine if you are comfortable continuing.

 

and if you think a cache is misrated, mention it on the cache page or email the owner...don't demand the cache be removed, and then call anyone who disagrees with you, an idiot.

 

*sheesh*

Link to comment
You put a geocach in the middle of a spikey briar and you tell people to get it. That is the definition of a trap.

No, these are the definitions of "Trap":

 

trap:  /træp/ –noun

1. a contrivance used for catching game or other animals, as a mechanical device that springs shut suddenly.

2. any device, stratagem, trick, or the like for catching a person unawares.

3. traps, the percussion instruments of a jazz or dance band.

4. the piece of wood, shaped somewhat like a shoe hollowed at the heel, and moving on a pivot, used in playing the game of trapball.

5. Slang. mouth: Keep your trap shut.

6. Chiefly British. a carriage, esp. a light, two-wheeled one.

–verb (used with object) 14. to catch in a trap; ensnare: to trap foxes.

7. to catch by stratagem, artifice, or trickery.

8. to furnish or set with traps.

9. to engage in the business of trapping animals for their furs.

10. Trapshooting, Skeet. to work the trap.

 

If someone places a cache in a briarpatch, next to a busy roadway, my first job is to assess the situation. My first step would be to recognise that roads are often used by motor vehicles. My personal experience tells me that getting hit by a motor vehicle can cause injury to my person, so I would tend to pay attention to my surroundings whilst hunting this cache. Assuming the briars aren't of the invisible variety, I'm going to see them during my aforementioned assessment. Since I know they are there, and since I've been painfully poked by thorns in the past, I would take steps to avoid them.

 

Darwin once opined that a species too stupid inattentive to survive rarely does so. If you are so stupid inattentive that you can't engage in a task which 40+ people somehow survived, perhaps it would be best if you eliminated yourself from the gene pool through natural selection. Life has risks. Geocaching has risks. Statistically you are in much greater danger driving to that cache than you would be in hunting it. I don't need you holding my hand while I cache. Please don't try to get a cache archived simply because you think I can't find it safely.

 

oh

my

goodness.

 

I hope that Clan Riffster is a male, cause I have just fallen in :anibad:.

Link to comment

 

and if you think a cache is misrated, mention it on the cache page or email the owner...don't demand the cache be removed, and then call anyone who disagrees with you, an idiot.

 

*sheesh*

 

That I can agree, emailing the owner (and worst case, the admin) is always a good first step. I really doubt this cache needs to be removed, maybe just a gentle but still better warning that being in the encrypted hint.

Link to comment

Seems like you have chased Jusl89 away.

This is not a correct conclusion.

 

Regrettably, many posts to this thread stoop to the level of personal attacks directed back at Jusl89. One attack does not justify another.

 

So, now here's a warning for everyone *else* to play nicely. Discuss the issue, not the person who raised it.

Link to comment

Well I say................

 

If it LOOKS like a cactus.......

 

If it STICKS YOU like a cactus.......

 

If it RARELY SIPS water like a cactus.......

 

Then.........BY GOLLY.........It IS a Cactus!

 

And lets not forget that there are some people INTO pain of all sorts.

 

Getting stuck by a Cactus! Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....S--W--EEEEEEE-TTT!!

 

Getting hit by an oncoming car! Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....NER-VAAAAAANNN---AAAAAAAAHHH!!

 

:anibad:

Link to comment

Troll? or just someone who had a bad experience geocaching and is looking to get his account banned?

 

I know this is a little late, but here it is:

 

0c3f22fe-2fa8-466a-89f6-353f5b81fa48.jpg

 

You have the right AND the responsibility to ignore what you consider too dangerous. In this game/hobby, there are milder caches to hunt if you do not want a physical or mental challenge.

 

There are thousands of relatively safe lamppost skirt micros available, but then again, you may get hit by a stray shopping cart. Maybe I need to rethink that suggestion...

Link to comment

Troll? or just someone who had a bad experience geocaching and is looking to get his account banned?

 

Oh, I foresee a "Track in the box" type meltdown.

:anibad: Thank you! I was so hoping for a TITB reference in this thread! I was gonna have to do it myself if I got the end with out it.

 

As for the original point, even my 5 year old son knows enough to not stand in the road, or grab a cactus. Of course, I still make him do the crawling under bushes. :o

Link to comment

OK, the boss says talk about the question, not the questioner, and with 124 posts I haven't seen the answer I would give, so here goes!

 

There is no evaluation of nor rating for danger.

Danger is not something the Volunteer Reviewers could evaluate from a listing.

Groundspeak clearly states that the geocacher determines any danger and is expected to act accordingly.

 

However,

No one wants cachers hurt.

If you seek a cache and discover danger that you believe to be unknowable from the listing and not obvious to the seeker (i.e. it is a night-cache and you find an old well covered with rotting boards along the path to the cache) then make a note of it in your log.

Email the owner and ask that a note be placed in the description describing the danger.

 

If the owner does not respond, or if you feel the response to be inadequate,

Log a Needs Archived note explaining why you feel this danger needs to be known or is of such an unavoidable danger that the cache needs to be archived. This alerts the Reviewer, who will then investigate the merit of your claim and then the issue, if it in fact has merit.

 

If you don't like the Reviewer's resolution,

File an appeal with Groundspeak, they are very fair arbiters of such disputes.

 

THEN if you are still unhappy with the result you can bring the issue to these forums and see if you find any sympathy.

 

It looks to me like you have approached the process in reverse! :anibad:

 

Good luck,

Ed

Link to comment

 

How do I get it removed?

 

Hi Jusl89,

 

usually people are able to decide on their own if they want to go to a location or not. GC doesn't need someone who plays nanny for other cachers.

 

I personally don't go to caches like this, because I don't think that is what GC is about - FOR ME. Others just do the drive up geocaches.

 

Jusl89, there are caches underwater, in forest, islands, valleys. Every caches has a slight risk that something happens to you. A snake could bite you, you could drown, get lost, or get robbed. I don't know, life is dangerous. Do you want to remove all urban caches, because it might be dangerous to run around with $500 worth of electronic in your hands at certain times / places?

 

Your post really bugs me, because it shows me a trend in our western societies. Some people realize that they have no common sense, skills or are otherwise cerebrally challenged. Some of those people assume that everybody else is a moron as well and try to protect them by limiting their freedom to do things they deem dangerous or not appropriate.

 

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT - DON'T DO IT! BUT DON'T TELL OTHERS WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO!

Link to comment

Troll? or just someone who had a bad experience geocaching and is looking to get his account banned?

 

Oh, I foresee a "Track in the box" type meltdown.

:anibad: Thank you! I was so hoping for a TITB reference in this thread! I was gonna have to do it myself if I got the end with out it.:

 

BTW, did anyone else notice that the OP originally claimed to be from PA, the same as TITB?

Or that the OP joined the site the same day that TITB got banned?

 

"I'll take 'Things that make you go hmmmmm' for $200, Alex."

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

TOP TEN SIGNS THAT THE CACHE MAY BE MORE THAN YOU'RE READY FOR.

 

10. The last log entry reads, "Had to eat Bill today."

9. The listed attributes include "Kevlar recommended."

8. The previous finder is buried there.

7. There's a Surgeon General's warning on the cache page.

6. The last line in the cache description reads, "Best if done while the bear is gone."

5. The list of "special tools needed" includes "HazMat suit."

4. The cache description gives elevation in fathoms.

3. Cache owner lists location of nearby health facilities that stock the appropriate anti-venom.

2. Previous finder recommends lots of 100% DEET and a flamethrower.

1. Pictures from cache site regularly feature photographs of burning tanks.

Link to comment

no, cactus can't hurt you unless you grab them.

 

Beg to differ - I'm almost certain that "jumping cholla" is actually able to leap as far as six feet, and has a thirst for human blood :)

 

JEEZE! I really don't understand how this keeps getting exaggerated!

Everyone around here KNOWS that Jumping Cholla has a maximum range of about two feet horizontal. I suppose that if you were downhill on a slope when it decided to POUNCE on you, it might appear to have been six feet. But, of course, the delirium from the toxins on the viciously barbed needles would make an accurate measurement difficult.

Link to comment

Troll? or just someone who had a bad experience geocaching and is looking to get his account banned?

 

If anyone should be banned, it's someone who places a cache where people can die. You can bet I'm angry, becuase it almost happened to me.

O come on! :):P

 

I think you're trying to take this way too far.

 

It is NOT your responsibility to protect people from them selves.

 

I'll tell you just what I tell my mom (I call her smother can you guess why?) "I'm a big boy, I'll decide". I think that is what everyone has been telling you, let us decide for our selves what is to dangerous for us.

Edited by BAF
Link to comment

This cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

 

is placed in a very dangrous location. It is right next to a road where cars go very fast. In addition, the cache is placed in a patch of cacti, causing great injury. I do not believe this cache should be listed as it may lead to people getting hit by cars.

 

How do I get it removed?

 

You don't. It's not your cache, it's not your responsiblity. If you have an issue you post it in your find log, or a cache note about your adventure. Then you are done.

Link to comment

I would normally agree with everyone on here and disagree with Jusl89 but the problem is not that the cache should be removed but the cache listing should somehow reflect this danger.

 

HaLiJuSaPa, if you haven't done so yet, you should pull up the cache listing, read it, and then look at the Google maps satellite view in close zoom. You'll discover that the cache isn't hidden in an especially dangerous place, despite what the OP claims. Is it located near a road? Yes. But it's located nearer the sidewalk/bike path along that same road. Clamoring to have this cache removed as unsafe makes no more sense than demanding that the bike path it is on be destroyed.

 

Likewise, changing the description to reflect that the cache is near a road is absurd. Chances are, anyone who arrives at the cache will do so using that same road, and the placement of the cache will be exceedingly obvious.

Edited by VeryLost
Link to comment

troll_04.jpg

 

maybe severe. why doesnts this person go mind his own business. why hasnt he responded in awhile.

 

Maybe all Geocaching should be banned. You could breathe paint fumes while painting a container or get a papercut while putting the logbook in it, (danger of infection), not to mention the dangers that exist while traveling to the cache location, ie. traffic, muggers, exhaust fumes, falling meteors or space stations, etc.

How many people were hurt looking for this cache??

It's only funny 'til somebody gets hurt,

then it's hilarious!

 

Dang. You had me feeling smug. I know of only one cactus cache in the northeast (and it's a virtual). There's plenty of prickly pear at Sandy Hook, but that's NPS. Now I have to worry about falling space stations?? Is there an attribute that I can put on my cache page for 'falling space stations'?

 

yes there are cactus and a geocache at Island Beach Sate Park 50 miles or less from sandy hook and i stepped on one and my foot hurt for a week (went through show believe it or not).

Edited by fishingdude720
Link to comment

Hey all! Listen here.... first of all don't badger the OP! he has a very valid point that all you retards could learn a lesson from. And by the way do you think that because I only have 11 finds does that make me geo-caching retarded? <edited> I think that said cacher has a good point and should write an email to Groundspeak!

Edited by Quiggle
Link to comment
Hey all! Listen here.... first of all don't badger the OP! he has a very valid point that all you retards could learn a lesson from. And by the way do you think that because I only have 11 finds does that make me geo-caching retarded? <edited> I think that said cacher has a good point and should write an email to Groundspeak!

You seem to agree with the OP that the cache in question should be archived because he thinks it's simply too dangerous to be listed.

 

Fine, but here's a free tip: You might find it easier to convince folks that the OP's point is valid by explaining why you think it is valid -- with supporting statements, analogies or other logic -- instead of simply claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is "retarded." Don't you agree? Or do you normally find yourself immediately conceding to any debate opponents who responds by calling YOU childish names?

Edited by Quiggle
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...