Jump to content

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

Jusl89

By Jusl89
in General geocaching topics

Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Torry

+Torry

Posted
Posted

Back to the OP ...

 

There is all manner of danger everywhere. This game is not about sitting all day in front of a monitor doing everything in a virtual world. This is real life. There are bugs, rocks, cars, hills, water, ice - all manner of natural hazards to participants. Use appropriate care, be prepared and if you're uncomfortable and unwilling to risk it: don't do it.

Link to comment
Quiggle

+Quiggle

Posted
Posted

Please revisit the forum guidelines (even those of you who quoted the offending posts), which state:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

There's also a part in there about keeping on topic, so please get back to the original discussion.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Sagefox

+Sagefox

Posted
Posted

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?

 

Not sure what a geocaching retard is because in 5 years of geocaching I've not heard anyone use this term before.

 

An apparent find count of 11 caches and an apparent time-in-the-game of 4 months is not an indication of how good you might or might not be at finding caches. But when someone with this apparently minimal geocaching experience makes a such a strong statement we are not exactly inclined to take it very seriously. And, presumably, you have not been to the subject cache which brings into question your statement that "...he has a very valid point".

 

Note to self: Schedule inspection of this cache for December 12th, bring gloves, watch for cars and dress in the garb of a landscape maintainer. Prepare to find a container that is very exposed but hard to "see". Sounds like a fun cache.

Link to comment
uxorious

+uxorious

Posted
Posted

TORRY your top ten list is great, I've sent it off to a couple cache buddies.

 

Some have mentioned the child friendly aspect of this game. But not all caches are safe for all children. It is up to the parents to decide which caches they will attempt with their kids. The cache owner has no idea the ability of someone Else's children.

 

I cache with my dogs, and I know when I can let them out of the vehicle with me, and when to make them wait in the car while I look. (Of course if you have children, you can't just leave them in the car, unless you have an adult to sit with them. You would just have to skip the cache. )

 

One of my favorite caches I got to last summer, (Burly Mtn. Lookout, GCP6ZT ) was rated 1/1, but I left the dogs in the car. If I had been geocaching while my kids where little, I know exactly how old they would have been before I would let them out. The parking area for the cache has a rock cliff drop off on one edge.

 

The catch is, I would not know how someone Else's kids would be. Would your kid be OK at say five years old, or would you leave them in the car when they were ten, (or twenty five, :) )

 

The point here is, DO NOT ASSUME ALL CACHES ARE CHILD FRIENDLY, even though the game itself is very much so. It is up to the parents to decide which caches their kids can go on.

Link to comment
KBI

+KBI

Posted
Posted
The point here is, DO NOT ASSUME ALL CACHES ARE CHILD FRIENDLY, even though the game itself is very much so. It is up to the parents to decide which caches their kids can go on.

Wise words ... but they don't apply only to geocaching.

 

One of my favorite things about the way this game is managed is that, for the most part, folks are free to make their own decisions regarding what risks they are willing to take. I for one don't want that cache archived just because somebody complained. Let the OP post a note on the cache page and leave it at that. If I think I might want to try the cache, let ME decide. I appreciate warnings, but I'm also capable of making my own decisions, and I don't need anyone trying to protect me from myself by making those decisions for me.

 

Those who are not equipped with self-preservation instincts, including the ability to assess such risks for themselves are, as always, invited to allow natural selection to run its course.

 

 

Hey ... how 'bout some Latin?

 

Cavaet lector -- Let the reader beware

 

Casis tutissima virtus - Virtue is the safest helmet

 

Vis consili expers mole ruit sua -- Brute force bereft of wisdom falls to ruin by its own weight. (Discretion is the better part of valor)

 

Numquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit - Never does nature say one thing and wisdom say another

 

Damnant quod non intelligunt - They condemn what they do not understand

 

Braccae tuae aperiuntur - Your fly is open

 

 

... and my favorite:

 

Rectum non bustus -- (No need to explain this one to anyone with ANY geocaching experience)

Link to comment
WeightMan

+WeightMan

Posted
Posted

While it's still happening it's called "trouble." When you're telling the story later it's called "adventure."

 

KBI's tag line says it all. Anytime you are in "trouble" while caching it could be dangerous to life and limb. So which caches get banninated? Most involve some potential for "trouble."

 

Is it time for this yet?

 

Sappho.jpg

Link to comment
Woodbutcher68

+Woodbutcher68

Posted
Posted

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.

:) 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."

 

His profile says he's from California. Seems to be in the state of confusion.

Link to comment
HaLiJuSaPa

+HaLiJuSaPa

Posted
Posted

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.

 

I have looked at the cache listing before my initial comments. I will concede that if no one among 50+ finders made any comment on this in their find logs you are probably correct. On the other hand:

 

1) Google maps is sometimes a tiny bit off

 

2) One of our cache listings is not placed right next to a road, but a major limited-access highway crosses the park that it is in and someone could in theory (though they'd have to be pretty clueless) interpret Google Maps to mean that they somehow have to cross that highway or pull over to the side of it and bushwhack in.

So I have a brief sentence saying that they don't have to do that, here are the coords for the entrance. I've seen other caches like this as well. I would prefer not to mention this either, but the sad fact is that people can sue over things that really are the fault of that person not using common sense and often they win it as well. There's no need for geocaching to get a needless black eye over something that although should be common sense can be solved with common sense in the listing as well.

Link to comment
El Diablo

+El Diablo

Posted
Posted

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!

 

I've never considered myself a retard. :P But I don't agree with the OP, so I guess I am one. :) I think anyone arriving near the cache can make an adult decision to seek it or not.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
QuigleyJones

QuigleyJones

Posted
Posted

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

 

is placed in a very dangerous 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?

From the google maps I just cant see how it could be considered dangerous (I have found caches closer to the roads and closer to highways which I felt safe finding).

Its way more likely that you will die from being hit by a speeding car on your drive home then by a car jumping the curve at hitting you while you search for a this cache.

 

Should we ban all ice cream stores from operation because some disgruntled employee might put blades in the ice cream? Or more relevantly, ban all caches because lightning/falling planes/landslides/carnivores/floods might kill seekers?

 

Regardless it would be interesting to know whether a polite email was sent to the cache owner first to ask for a warning notice on the cache page or to archive it.

Link to comment
Harry Dolphin

+Harry Dolphin

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Dang. I knew I was doing something wrong! I can think of two or three caches that I decided were too difficult and dangerous for me (And I have not looked at the one that requires climbing forty-five feet up a tree yet.) What did I do? I logged DNFs. "Dolphin ain't that dumb." And, believe me, they were a lot more dangerous than being near a bike path, highway and cactus. Now I realize that any cache that I do not like should be archived. How simple is that!

Link to comment
Wadcutter

+Wadcutter

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

It may be a coincidence but the news just ran a report of a guy in California with a GPS around his neck who was walking on a trail, stepped on a cactus and stumbled into the street where he was hit by a car. Just before he died he was yelling gibberish of "ARK HIGH VET". Police do not have a clue what he meant. The autopsy revealed he had just eaten a bowl of ice cream full of razor blades.

Link to comment
Harry Dolphin

+Harry Dolphin

Posted
Posted

[it may be a coincidence but the news just ran a report of a guy in California with a GPS around his neck who was walking on a trail, stepped on a cactus and stumbled into the street where he was hit by a car. Just before he died he was yelling gibberish of "ARK HIGH VET". Police do not have a clue what he meant. The autopsy revealed he had just eaten a bowl of ice cream full of razor blades.

 

Couldn't be the same person. The manufacturer of my GPS clearly states that the GPS should never be worn around the neck by the cord. That might be a dangerous thing to do. OP clearly would never do anything dangerous. So it could not be the same person.

Link to comment
Moore9KSUcats

+Moore9KSUcats

Posted
Posted

Hmm.... there is a cache in front of my house (not placed by me) that is under the mailbox, probably less than one foot from the road. Despite the fact that the road is posted at 30 mph, cars routinely fly over the rise at 45 to 50 mph. (Our house is at the top of the rise.) There are no curbs or sidewalks. By the OP's standards, this would be an extremely dangerous cache. Also, one of our cats got hit by a car speeding down the road (I watched it... a VERY scary sight, I'll tell you). She did survive, and all of our cats are house cats now, unless one escapes for a few hours. (Our house is about 90 ft back from the road, fortunately.)

 

As a funny point, that mailbox is a replacement from several years ago... when the original mailbox got flattened by a UPS truck that was rear-ended by a car that didn't see it slowing down! What an exciting event to have happen in your front yard. What a very scary thing to see when you drive home from work and see flashing lights, ambulance (no real injuries), and a sheriff's car in front of your house... I darn near had a heart attack right then!

 

Ohhhh..... that cache better be archived! (sarcastic tone of voice, please note) Someone could get hurt!

Link to comment
Vinny & Sue Team

+Vinny & Sue Team

Posted
Posted

You could read this

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/disclaimer.aspx

 

Especially the big bold lettered sentence in the middle.

 

Alright, so next cache I make will lead people into a covered spike pit. Thanks for the advice.

Actually, to my way of thinking, what you propose to do would be perfectly within guidelines so long as you assign the appropriate Difficulty and Terrain rating (the latter a 5) to the cache and so long as you disclose the more obvious hazards, challenges and equipment needed on the cache listing page.

 

And allow me to back out to a broader view for a moment, since it occurs to me that you may be very new to this sport and that you also may not have any past experience with any outdoor sports (such as trail running, mountain biking, rock climbing, bouldering, talus running, caving/spelunking, vertical rope work, sport parachuting, SCUBA diving, cave diving, etc.) where there are sometimes some risks -- sometimes even extreme risks -- inherent in pursuing the sport and where specialized equipement and/or training may be needed. So, for the broader view, here goes:

 

Many geocaches -- in fact, the majority -- are placed in spots where even sedentary or unconditioned people, or families with children may find them with ease and relative safety; these "family-rated" caches are typically hidden in any of the following places:

  • a city or municpal park
  • along a city street
  • under a lamppost in a shoping mall parking lot or store parking lot
  • in the woods in a rural area or state park
  • in a forested area, accessible after a short hike

The above-listed sitings are representative of the most commonplace geocaches, which are usually accessible even by sedentary people or families with children. However, some caches are tougher, and, in these cases, it falls upon the seeker to exercise prudence and commmonsense and decide if a cache is within their capabilities. If not, they are welcome to walk away. In fact, some of the more extreme geocaches out at the far end of the bell-shaped curve fall into a category known as "extreme geocaches"; these are appropriately listed and rated as such on the geocaching website, and tend to be hidden in dangerous spots where special gear and/or training may be needed. These caches are sought only by people with the necessary gear and training, and some finders or find teams might invest dozens or even hundreds of person-hours in order to successfully find an extreme geocache. Some typical extreme geocaching hide sites might include:

  • deep inside a tiny storm drain pipe carrying polluted runoff water under a city
  • in the wilderness, accesible only via a long hike
  • in the mountains at an elevation of 12,000 feet
  • in a remote spot in a desert
  • deep in a cave located at 10,000 foot elevation
  • halfway up a steep cliff in the wilderness
  • deep underwater, accessible only using SCUBA gear
  • on an island in the middle of a large and powerful river
  • atop a sheer stone pylon rising 100 above the water level in the center of a major river
  • in the containment building of an abandoned nuclear reactor, in a site riddled with toxic chemical waste, radioactive waste, asbestos dust and hantavirus infested rodents
  • at a depth of 250 feet underwater in a vertical pit cave, accessible only to advanced certified cave divers

I hope that this perspective and overview may have helped you a bit!

Link to comment
Vinny & Sue Team

+Vinny & Sue Team

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.

Keystone, thank you -- that needed to be said! :)

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment
Team GPSaxophone

+Team GPSaxophone

Posted
Posted

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.

Did you know that you can die anywhere on the planet? :)

 

People die everyday in hospitals, yet that's also where you go if you're trying not to die. Maybe we should ban hospitals.

 

You don't need to hunt a geocache to die. You could die sitting in front of your computer. Maybe we should ban computers. Let's start with yours.

Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted

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....

 

Sorry, but I just can't buy into that. Stating a danger on a cache is a courtesy. It's not mandatory nor should it be. If it's ever anything more than a courtesy then there is a legal obligation to state any and all dangers. Nobody could possibly ever do that and geocaching would fall victum to legal paranoia.

 

Even if you only had to point out "significant" dangers nobody is going to agree on that. It's far and away best to just leave it as a nice thing, a courtesy, but not mandatory and keep it to where the seeker assumes all risks in hunting a cache.

Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted

....You are completly missing the point. The cache does not state that cars will be barreling down at you while you are sticking your face in a spikey cactus patch. This cache needlessy endangers people.

 

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."

 

You are mixing up several things and legal issues.

 

When I place a cache I have essentialy said "there is a box in this location" It's implied that I did it and got out without harm or I'd have listed it due to my death. That's all I promise. I'm not trying to harm you. If I were that would be against the law.

 

If you have a business that's another thing. Your are holding out your business as suitable for it's purpose. An ice cream shop has an obligation to serve safe ice cream. That would mean no razor blades. Also since there is no reason to put razor blades in ice cream other than to cause harm the attempt would be against the law.

 

Come up with more examples and I'll be happy to go into more details.

Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted

...Alright, so next cache I make will lead people into a covered spike pit. Thanks for the advice.

...

 

If you set your pocket knife on the table and I borrow it and cut myself with it. You are fine.

If you set your pocket knife on the table and the blade is open and I cut myself reaching for it. You are fine.

If you set your pocket knife in a dark spot with the blade open knowing I'll reach for it and cut myself and I do. You are in trouble.

If you just cut me with your pocket knife you are in even more trouble.

 

Caches are similar.

 

The ability to be harmed was always there. It's the intent that changes.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

While it's still happening it's called "trouble." When you're telling the story later it's called "adventure."

 

KBI's tag line says it all. Anytime you are in "trouble" while caching it could be dangerous to life and limb. So which caches get banninated? Most involve some potential for "trouble."

 

Is it time for this yet?

 

Sappho.jpg

 

No need for the Llama's, I believe Goodwin was invoked around post #75 last night. Which should have killed this thread on the spot. I also predicted a "Track in the box type meltdown". Not that I'm blowing my own horn or anything :)

Link to comment
BAF

+BAF

Posted
Posted

Hey, whats the deal ? You te-rards makin' fun'a 1 uv us Pencil-vanians ? Rest a ya dont' no nuttin bout cachen.

 

we don't have 1 single cache here in PA in a cactus, so none else shude ether. :)

I could send you a potted cactus that you could put on top of a cache if that will make it so everyone else can keep there cactus caches. :P

Link to comment
wandat24

wandat24

Posted
Posted
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.... :unsure:

I haven't finished reading yet and would bet this has been brought up. I may be wrong but I think GC.com and hiders (for that matter) are safe from being sued if someone got hurt badly while looking for a cache... Something about there being mentioned (more then once) that the cacher (finder) is responsible for themselves while caching... Not exact words and I don't feel like looking up the exact wording, but it's something like that........ :laughing::unsure: Someone (that knows) please correct me if I'm wrong...

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted

Hey, whats the deal ? You te-rards makin' fun'a 1 uv us Pencil-vanians ? Rest a ya dont' no nuttin bout cachen.

 

we don't have 1 single cache here in PA in a cactus, so none else shude ether. :laughing:

What sorta temps do you get there in the winter? We can grow cactus outside in below freezing weather here. :unsure: My dad was thinking about placing a cache in front of his firestation by the sign where he planted a bunch of cacti a couple years back. Pretty yellow flowers in the spring. :unsure:

Link to comment
wandat24

wandat24

Posted
Posted
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.

:laughing:

Link to comment
wandat24

wandat24

Posted
Posted

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

 

I hope you've noticed I have not yet once asked for a pony.

Well, maybe not today. But on December 14th, 2004, you asked for a pony.

 

yes, yes, I meant in this specific thread. It seems to be doing fine without my nice thought-out replies :unsure:

:laughing:

But that's say the 19th...

I want a pony.

See?

Link to comment
wandat24

wandat24

Posted
Posted
:laughing: Something is going to kill me sooner or later. That's pretty sobering. It's a 100% chance of a fatality in my future. :unsure: I'm going to die! :unsure: Aaaah! :unsure: Maybe if I stop geocaching. Or...maybe if I stop getting out of bed. :unsure: Darn it! Why do I have to die?! :unsure:

 

Oh, well :unsure: I guess I was destined to become a buried cache one day. :unsure:

Best thing you can do to avoid dieing is to be in a coma... wait no, usually even that leads to death... So, you just have to die in able to avoid dying again.

Link to comment
Team Snorkasaurus

+Team Snorkasaurus

Posted
Posted

Jusl89 askes: "Extremely dangerous cache....how do I get it removed?"

 

You don't. It is not your place to make that decision. There are dangerous caches out there, many in fact. Some geocachers want the challenge associated with caches that other people may find unacceptably dangerous. Certainly you should be responsible for your own actions, if you find a cache to be too dangerous then don't do it; however, allow the rest of us to decide for ourselves what is an acceptable risk.

 

Also... Thanks to Torry for a very funny Top 10!

 

:laughing:

Link to comment
HaLiJuSaPa

+HaLiJuSaPa

Posted
Posted
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.... :unsure:

I haven't finished reading yet and would bet this has been brought up. I may be wrong but I think GC.com and hiders (for that matter) are safe from being sued if someone got hurt badly while looking for a cache... Something about there being mentioned (more then once) that the cacher (finder) is responsible for themselves while caching... Not exact words and I don't feel like looking up the exact wording, but it's something like that........ :laughing::unsure: Someone (that knows) please correct me if I'm wrong...

 

If there is something like that, however obscure a place it may be in on the site, yes, Groundspeak would be covered. You often have to sign little wavers like that on things like when you go skiing at a ski area even if you're just taking a lesson on the bunny hill so the resort is protected. Obviously doing it that way would be impractical for gc.com (except maybe if it was shown to you when you first create your GC account, though it would be quite annoying).

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted (edited)
looks like he's been given his daily tablets and been sent to bed :laughing::unsure:

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

Typical forum behavior... first you lynch the guy, then you ridicule him when he stops kicking.

 

The OP comes here and and calls those who don't share his concern "idiots", "sick freaks", "deviants" and "fools", then goes on to use foul language that has to be edited out by the moderator and you expect the other participants to use restraint?

 

If he came here with an earnest concern and politely debated the issue I'm sure he would have had a much more gentle response.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 6
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...