Safer Category - Extreme Caching

[+Super-T]

Picture this, you create a cache that you need to abseil/rappel down to, or you create a cache that requires very special equipment to get to. You put huge warnings all over your cache's main page.

Someone does a search for all "Traditional caches" and downloads a great wad of them into their GPS unit, and then whenever they get the chance, call up the nearest one, and take pot-luck as to whether they'll find it without any of the information from the cache's info page - which is pretty much how I worked until I got a PDA to store the information pages on.

 

Now completely unawares, they call up the one that's on the side of the cliff, and head off, without being able to read any of the warnings the owner so carefully put up on the info page.

See a problem ?

 

If the more extreme caches were a category of their own - and yes I realise the issues with having too many categories, and that we can't categorise every cache type - at least if it was listed as an extreme cache, those who chose to download them into their unit would know that's what they'd downloaded, and not risk running off a cliff looking for what had appeared in the search as a "traditional cache"

 

Just my two cents worth.

 

And probably way off beam as usual.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I think the terrain rating already covers this.

[+ePeterso2]

Do you really believe that someone who's willing to just go chase a descriptionless waypoint is going to be someone who's likely to filter their caches?

 

I would think you would encourage folks to go after waypoints without reading the cache page. If enough of them fell off of cliffs while going for those caches, then the situation you describe would cease to be a problem ;-)

[+Super-T]

Do you really believe that someone who's willing to just go chase a descriptionless waypoint is going to be someone who's likely to filter their caches?

 

I would think you would encourage folks to go after waypoints without reading the cache page. If enough of them fell off of cliffs while going for those caches, then the situation you describe would cease to be a problem ;-)

 

I do.

I filter out everything except traditional caches, then fill the GPS with 100's of them. Then whenever I'm somewhere new, or have some time on my hand, I boot it up and ask it for the nearest cache.

I try my luck first, and only then if I can't find it will I either log in via the mobile phone network, and find the page that way, or now look it up in the ebook file that Premium PQ's sends you.

But either way, I like trying to find it without anything to go by except the co-ordinates, it makes it more challenging. Just like some never decrypt the hints for the same reason.

[BRTango]

Do you really believe that someone who's willing to just go chase a descriptionless waypoint is going to be someone who's likely to filter their caches?

 

I would think you would encourage folks to go after waypoints without reading the cache page. If enough of them fell off of cliffs while going for those caches, then the situation you describe would cease to be a problem ;-)

 

I do.

I filter out everything except traditional caches, then fill the GPS with 100's of them. Then whenever I'm somewhere new, or have some time on my hand, I boot it up and ask it for the nearest cache.

I try my luck first, and only then if I can't find it will I either log in via the mobile phone network, and find the page that way, or now look it up in the ebook file that Premium PQ's sends you.

But either way, I like trying to find it without anything to go by except the co-ordinates, it makes it more challenging. Just like some never decrypt the hints for the same reason.

 

Do you at least look at the D/T before heading for a cache? I do much the same as you do, but for those caches, I usually only pull the ones 4/3.5 and below. For anything with D/T higher than that, I always read the cache page first.

 

Additionally... if I'm after a cache and haven't read the page, I will assess the terrain and determine if I am capable of doing the cache without any additional information, equipment, experience, assistance. If I'm approaching a cliff... I stop.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I filter out everything except traditional caches, then fill the GPS with 100's of them. Then whenever I'm somewhere new, or have some time on my hand, I boot it up and ask it for the nearest cache.

So if I understand correctly, you are suggesting the addition of a new cache type ('extreme') to help people who like to cache essentially the way you do (coordinate only, seat-of-pants), but with the additional caveat that they want to avoid special equipment or side-of-cliff caches?

 

Again, the existing terrain rating feature already covers this. Simply filter out terrain 5 caches. No new cache type needed.

[+Kabuthunk]

I'll have to agree with all of the above. If there's a seperate category, I can see it being heavily abused by liar's caches, and others who think it means "mildly difficult".

 

I mean... can you imagine setting up for a massive 'extreme cache', when it turns out the level of extreme is "It's 9 feet in the air... WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DOOOO!!!! Looks like you'll have to CLIMB A TREE!"

 

Yep... going with terrain/difficulty, and there's already categories for requiring certain equipment.

[+Cache U Nutter]

I agree wholeheartedly

As someone who has put up a number of 'extreme' caches recentelyI know that the existing grading is completely useless as a way of describing overall difficulty.

A straight forward abseil to get to a cache would be a 5/5 grade , but there again a challenge involving some degree of risk i.e of falling or being hit by stones is given the same grade despite it being much more difficult and dangerous.

Also, a future cache I intend to put up will involve a wild ,free abseil over an overhang, where to get to the cache you wound then have to pendulem in to grab a rock spike and then free climb out. Saying that thecurrent 5*/5* grade reflects this challenge is laughable!!

 

As a climber and mountaineer of many years, I see the futures great for this niche of Geocaching where people want to do something a bit more exiting and maybe involving a little bit of a risk [ or even a big risk- please refer to my 'A Bridge Too Far' cache]

I have in fact incorporated a climbing degree of difficulty grade to reflect the seriousness of the undertaking to get to some of my caches.

Really looking forwards to more people putting up more difficult caches and thank the british reviewers in particular for allowing me to push the envelope [ as described in the guidelines]

[Keystone]

I'm always delighted when an "extreme" cache shows up in my review queue. They tend to be interesting to read and study, and I enjoy working with the owners if there are any guideline issues.

 

That being said, I cringe at the suggestion of a new cache type. I don't want to be in a position of having to judge which caches are extreme enough to qualify for the rating. That smells like the wow factor test. I also worry about "ratings creep" where people try to shoehorn their hill climb cache into the "extreme" category in order collect the icon for their profile.

 

Query also whether an extreme cache label could actually backfire in terms of liability. Suppose someone gets hurt on a hunt for a traditional cache. I can see the plaintiff laywer saying that the cache owner and the listing service were negligent for not taking advantage of the "extreme cache" warning.

 

An owner's obligation is to fairly disclose known risks on the cache page. Thereafter, all caches are undertaken at the finder's own risk. Failing to read the cache pages may increase that risk.

[+tozainamboku]

Do you really believe that someone who's willing to just go chase a descriptionless waypoint is going to be someone who's likely to filter their caches?

 

I would think you would encourage folks to go after waypoints without reading the cache page. If enough of them fell off of cliffs while going for those caches, then the situation you describe would cease to be a problem ;-)

 

I do.

I filter out everything except traditional caches, then fill the GPS with 100's of them. Then whenever I'm somewhere new, or have some time on my hand, I boot it up and ask it for the nearest cache.

I try my luck first, and only then if I can't find it will I either log in via the mobile phone network, and find the page that way, or now look it up in the ebook file that Premium PQ's sends you.

But either way, I like trying to find it without anything to go by except the co-ordinates, it makes it more challenging. Just like some never decrypt the hints for the same reason.

Ah! The solution is simple. When people who just load up all traditional caches complained that they were finding caches with additional logging requirements but since they didn't have the cache page they couldn't do the ALR, the guidelines were changed to require caches with ALRs be listed as Unknown/Mystery type caches. So we should just require extreme caches that require special equipment to be listed as Unknown/Mystery type cache so they won't show up in someone who doesn't read the cache pages pocket query. How about caches that are not available 24/7? Maybe someone will go to the park and get arrested for being there after it closes? I think a better solution is a new cache type for "Must Read The Cache Page before Hunting" caches is needed.

[+StarBrand]

I think the terrain rating already covers this very well.

 

If I come to a cliff because I failed to read the cache page - my fault. If I am not prepared to go down - then I shouldn't.

 

Also, I know of 2 caches that have an easy and safe path to get you there (if you read the cache page). However, the most straightforward approach is quite dangerous and involves cliffs. It would correctly not be labled extreme but still have cliffs and dangers.

[+dkwolf]

Do you really believe that someone who's willing to just go chase a descriptionless waypoint is going to be someone who's likely to filter their caches?

 

I would think you would encourage folks to go after waypoints without reading the cache page. If enough of them fell off of cliffs while going for those caches, then the situation you describe would cease to be a problem ;-)

I'm guessing if they have descriptionless waypoints loaded into their GPSr's, they are likely a premium member, and as such, if they wish to avoid certain types of caches or be warned about a certain type...GSAK is quite easy to set up to do that filtering for you, and you can customize how it names the waypoints on the gps. For instance, on my 60CSx, the note field contains 4 single characters. One for Cache Type, one for Cache Size, one for Difficulty, one for Terrain. A quick glance at the note field tells me what I can expect. Yes, you have to remember what the codes MEAN, but it's not that hard.

[+Criminal]

I like the idea of adding the suffix ‘SE’ to the cache name to designate the requirement for special equipment. For example, Cliff Hanger SE as a cache name. The idea that a 1/1 cache becomes a 1/5 because you need a screwdriver to open it is silly.

[+Cache U Nutter]

I'm always delighted when an "extreme" cache shows up in my review queue. They tend to be interesting to read and study, and I enjoy working with the owners if there are any guideline issues.

 

That being said, I cringe at the suggestion of a new cache type. I don't want to be in a position of having to judge which caches are extreme enough to qualify for the rating. That smells like the wow factor test. I also worry about "ratings creep" where people try to shoehorn their hill climb cache into the "extreme" category in order collect the icon for their profile.

 

Query also whether an extreme cache label could actually backfire in terms of liability. Suppose someone gets hurt on a hunt for a traditional cache. I can see the plaintiff laywer saying that the cache owner and the listing service were negligent for not taking advantage of the "extreme cache" warning.

 

An owner's obligation is to fairly disclose known risks on the cache page. Thereafter, all caches are undertaken at the finder's own risk. Failing to read the cache pages may increase that risk.

 

You make a very good point, as long as those trying to reach the cache do so at their own risk, and the cache owners disclose as much information as possible as regards the risk then there should not be a problem. However if the cache owner fails to mention that lets say swimming is required to reach the cache and the cacher opts to climb to the cache instead and has an accident, then the owner is at fault.

Owners must disclose all risks by way of a 'risk assesment' [this is what we call it in the U.K anyway] and then the cacher can make up their own mind.

For my peace of mind, where climbing is involved to my caches I also incorporate a 'risk' grade on top of the normal grades which reflect the actual danger involved i.e chances of decking it or being hit by falling rocks. I guess this could include the chances of being attacked by bears or giant porcupines having read some of the cache notes of some W.V caches!

Good that you are receptive to the idea of these caches, it would be very east to not allow them on the basis that they are dangerous.

[+Super-T]

I'm guessing if they have descriptionless waypoints loaded into their GPSr's, they are likely a premium member

 

Whilst I am a premium member now, even before premium I could still load my gps with nothing but Traditional caches by sorting right on the geocaching site, by traditonal only, and then tediously "mark all" and "download" ing each page of results one at a time and then loading them into my gps.

In fact This is EXACTLY where the danger lies. Premium members can sort by D/T so this isn't such an issue for them, but a non-premium member can sort right on the site by cache type, load all of one type such as traditional into the gps unit, and be heading out caching with no infor about how "safe" the cache they're attempting is. They may well even have never laid eyes on the cache's page. If it had a specific category, then they won't load those types unless they want to.

 

I know of at least one other cacher who - like me before Premium - used to sort on the site by traditional, then tediously load their gps unit with the whole lot one page of results at a time - and then just call up the nearest cache when somewhere different, and head out for it, in the hopes of finding it.

 

I know this isn't going to get a new category. But I've at least now pointed out that the site allows people to load up their units with caches without any knowledge of the "safety" involved in that cache. Whereas if the dangerous caches had their own category, they can't say blame anyone but themselves for loading that category into their units.

[+Super-T]

I think the terrain rating already covers this very well.

 

Yes it does, but only Premium members can filter by terrain.

Non-Premium members like I used to be, would just search on the site by "type" and load all of one category (for me it was "Traditional") into the gps unit. But they don't have any other info to go with those co-ordinates. Terrain rating is meaningless unless they can either sort by it, or have to view the page in order to load that info. But they don't have to. In fact they can load all traditional caches without ever even laying eyes on those cache's pages.

Edited April 30, 2007 by Super-T

[Neos2]

Just because you can go after a cache without reading the cache page doesn't mean you should.

 

Even a cache with a low terrain or difficulty level can have special instructions that you really should read before you go there. Those can include:

 

places to park legally

areas to avoid (crossing private property, bee hives)

entrance fees

days/times the area is open to the public

hazard warnings specific to children, pets etc

 

I agree that gc shouldn't make it any easier for someone to go to a site without reading the cache page. Not learning about a danger might be a risk to you and not knowing about special instructions might put the cche itself in danger. I'd rather have to read the cache page than to risk losing an ooportunity to do the cache at all because I didn't know to park on the street instead of the lot.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Whereas if the dangerous caches had their own category, they can't say blame anyone but themselves for loading that category into their units.

 

Dangerous category as defined by whom? For the benefit of people that don't read cache descriptions? huh?

 

Driving is the most dangerous thing most people do, that and lifestyle errors that contribute to risk of major illness.

 

My niece and nephew are both so allergic to poison ivy that contact can kill them by blocking air ways. There are a significant number of people who have that kind of response to bee sting. So are caches where there might be stinging insects, poison ivy, or driving (the number one cause of accidental death) all going in your dangerous category?

[+Prime Suspect]

I know this isn't going to get a new category. But I've at least now pointed out that the site allows people to load up their units with caches without any knowledge of the "safety" involved in that cache. Whereas if the dangerous caches had their own category, they can't say blame anyone but themselves for loading that category into their units.

News flash - Even without a separate category, there's still no one to blame but themselves.

 

From the TOU:

 

Geocaching, hiking, backpacking, and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a cache. Be prepared for Your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution. You assume all risks arising in connection with seeking a cache or any other related activity.

[+Renegade Knight]

Picture this, you create a cache that you need to abseil/rappel down to,....Now completely unawares, they call up the one that's on the side of the cliff, and head off, without being able to read any of the warnings the owner so carefully put up on the info page.

See a problem ?...

 

Yup. The non rock climbing cacher will need to come back with a rope and a magnet to snag that ammo can sitting on a ledge.

 

Most extreme caches are simple if you don't really use the extreme meethod intended. A horrible 4x4 trail that eats rigs alive is a simple hike. Class 5 rapids are also a simple hike. Scuba...Fishing pole (depending on the anchoring method) etc. Some few truly are extreme. Enough to make it worth it? I don't think so. Thousands of caches...one or two extreme and no way around it.