Deleting Logs and Dangerous Caches

[Tally Dragon]

I recently had a DNF log* deleted without warning because I complained about the cache being too far out in the woods with no trail to it. The owner of this cache is new to this area and probably does not realize the location of the cache is a prime habitat for the eastern diamondback rattlesnake and cotton mouth moccasin.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to subject your fellow geocachers, their friends, family and pets to danger and discomfort when the only motive is to make the cache harder to get to. It's better to make a cache harder to find by being creative rather than cruel.

 

I believe the only reason a cache owner should delete a log, is when it contains information that would give away the location of the cache, and then only after the person refuses to revise their entry.

 

Are there any rules regarding the cache owners right to delete logs. What is your opinion?

 

* Some cachers don't even bother logging DNF's.

 

 

Thanks for all the feedback so far on this issue.

 

It appears from the responses that the cache owners have the right and ability to delete log entries for whatever reason they choose. While it may be considered bad form to delete negative logs from your cache page, it is your right to do so.

 

Also I admit to being a whiner. On this particular day I was dressed more for the beach than the woods and paid a price for choosing to bushwhack through the palmetto bushes looking for this cache. Luckily it was only ant bites and brier cuts instead of a snake bite.

 

My comment was intended to suggest to the owner, that if the cache was closer to the road, it would have improved the cache experience for me. In the future I will place only positive comments in my logs and use email to suggest ideas to improve the geocache.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Tally Dragon

[+Criminal]

Deleting is a bit extreme, but one wonders how people moved about in your area before there were trails and roads.

[+briansnat]

If it were my cache I wouldn't have deleted it. Whiners and complainers deserve to be heard too.

 

Sheesh, if you don't like caches far out in the woods, with no trail and in prime rattlesnake habitat, stay away from my caches. That describes about half of my hides.

Edited May 1, 2007 by briansnat

[+Urubu]

[...] I believe the only reason a cache owner should delete a log, is when it contains information that would give away the location of the cache, and then only after the person refuses to revise their entry. [...]

 

I agree with these general principles, especially for DNF logs that contain helpful information that would allow other seekers to decide for themselves if the cache is worth hunting.

 

Unfortunately, some cache owners are just too insecure to allow criticism (real or perceived, justified or unjustified) of their creations.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I recently had a DNF log* deleted without warning because I complained about the cache being too far out in the woods with no trail to it. The owner of this cache is new to this area and probably does not realize the location of the cache is a prime habitat for the eastern diamondback rattlesnake and cotton mouth moccasin.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to subject your fellow geocachers, their friends, family and pets to danger and discomfort when the only motive is to make the cache harder to find. The owner has another cache in which he threatens in the description that, if you fail to replace the cache in EXACTLY the same location** as it was originally hid, your log will be deleted.

 

I believe the only reason a cache owner should delete a log, is when it contains information that would give away the location of the cache, and then only after the person refuses to revise their entry.

 

In the past I've been asked to revise my logs, but this is the first time I've had a log of mine deleted without warning. I'm reluctant to confront this geocacher with these issues because I've found several of his caches and I'm afraid he might delete all of my logs and maybe even sabotage some of my hides.

 

Are there any rules regarding the cache owners right to delete logs. What is your opinion?

 

* Some cachers don't even bother logging DNF's.

**How does he know the person before you didn't put it back in the wrong place? Does he check it every time it's found?

The cache which you cite sounds like a great wilderness cache to me, and a great cache overall, so long as the cach listing page assigns the appropriate and relvant Difficulty and Terrain ratings to the cache and also shows the appropriate attribute icons. And, if venemous snakes really as plentiful in the area as you have suggested, I would personally perhaps wish to see that fact mentioned on the cache listing page. Then again, in the forests of the East Coast (and elswhere) plentiful venemous snakes are ever-present and just one more hazerd of life. We live in the mountains; there are copperhead snakes which live in our backyard and a female copperhead who hangs out under our stone stairwell, and we never give the matter a second thought.

 

Oh, and if you really were and are concerned about the issues which you cited in your post, you will want to stay a million miles away from all of our caches, whether they be Sue's Puzzle Caches or my Psycho Backcountry Caches or my Psycho Urban Caches, for each of them will offer you a million times more ways -- as well as far more easy and far more effective ways -- to meet your Creator quickly than the cache which you have cited.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Knight2000]

Whiners and complainers deserve to be heard too.

Im not sure if you are referring to him being that way or not.

 

I didnt see his original log or how it was worded. But, if worded correctly i view it as helpful tips for a future cacher. The "warning" would be acceptable if worded correctly. I dont know if i would complain in the log though. I guess it would depend.

 

Again the difficulty/terrain rating should be appropriate. I think the OP's original intent was to help future cachers.

 

Again, i dont know how it was worded. But i have made posts such as "please be careful here there are many large rocks and could be dangerous".

 

Just my 2 cents.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The cache owner has the right/ability to delete any log that s/he chooses. (I had one deleted for mentioning that the coordinates were 170' off. Relogged with 'Found it.")

I have deleted several for not meeting the requirements (after a request to change log to note). If it's a web cam, a photo taken by the web cam is required! If it's a cache with a log book, signing the log book is required. I have requested that people change logs that give away mystery caches.

As to logs critical to the cache placement, those remain as part of the history. (You want to make a fool of yourself, go right ahead!!) I guess that they also serve to warn other cache hunters of possible problems that they may encounter, such as bears or snakes.

[+Renegade Knight]

I recently had a DNF log* deleted without warning because I complained about the cache being too far out in the woods with no trail to it. The owner of this cache is new to this area and probably does not realize the location of the cache is a prime habitat for the eastern diamondback rattlesnake and cotton mouth moccasin. ...

 

Deleting the log was a bit much. So was the complaint I suspect.

[+Renegade Knight]

The cache owner has the right/ability to delete any log that s/he chooses. (I had one deleted for mentioning that the coordinates were 170' off. Relogged with 'Found it.")...

 

One of my most fond "log wars" was with an Engineer who swore up and down his coords were dead on when I reported them to be about 250' off. He called into question my IQ and a few other things. He was sure to tell me that as an Engineer he was right, could not be wrong, and therefore I must be mistaken. Engineers are the worst. Fortunatly as an Engineer I knew I was right.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I wouldn't normally delete a log that meets the guidlines, if someone post a spoiler I don't like I'll ask them to change it, if they don't I may encrypt it but I still won't delete.

If I had a puzzle cache and they posted to much info though I would delete that.

[+Urubu]

I recently had a DNF log* deleted without warning because I complained about the cache being too far out in the woods with no trail to it. . ...

 

Deleting the log was a bit much. So was the complaint I suspect.

 

For the record, Tally Dragon is no whiner. If he was uncomfortable with a cache placement, that's useful information for others and shouldn't be deleted from the history.

[+The Leprechauns]

I suppose it's all in the wording. As a cache owner I wouldn't be troubled by a log that said "with all the boulders and off-trail hiking, I wonder whether there are rattlesnakes in the area and, if so, whether the snake attribute could be added to the cache page." I would, on the other hand, roll my eyes at a log that focused on the fact that the cache was way off the trail. I don't know that I'd delete it unless it rose from "whine" to "rant."

 

Man, I *love* caches that are way off the trail. Give us a linky to the subject cache of this thread so I can put it on my to-do list. Last weekend I was itching for a good bushwack but my schedule didn't permit me to travel far. So I chose a cache in an area where bushwacking is totally cool, consciously drove past the designated trailhead parking, and parked along the shoulder of the road at the point closest to the cache. I then bushwacked a quarter mile each way, across two deep ravines and streams, and through a fine patch of thorns. My kind of cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

I recently had a DNF log* deleted without warning because I complained about the cache being too far out in the woods with no trail to it. . ...

 

Deleting the log was a bit much. So was the complaint I suspect.

 

For the record, Tally Dragon is no whiner. If he was uncomfortable with a cache placement, that's useful information for others and shouldn't be deleted from the history.

 

Fair enough. They should provide suporting information. Everthing is prime habitat for something. That doesn't mean that the somthing even lives there, that it's endangered or that a cache creats any problem. Given my experience with reality and what people think they know, especially on environmentla impacts I wait for the expertise to shine thorugh. Otherwise it's just opinion. BTW you will note that I said deleting the log was a bit much.

[+Mudfrog]

Whiners and complainers deserve to be heard too.

Im not sure if you are referring to him being that way or not.

 

I didnt see his original log or how it was worded. But, if worded correctly i view it as helpful tips for a future cacher. The "warning" would be acceptable if worded correctly. I dont know if i would complain in the log though. I guess it would depend.

 

Again the difficulty/terrain rating should be appropriate. I think the OP's original intent was to help future cachers.

 

Again, i dont know how it was worded. But i have made posts such as "please be careful here there are many large rocks and could be dangerous".

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

I'm sure Briansnat was referring to the OP and i of course have to agree with his assessment. We don't know all the facts but it's easy to see by the OP's post, that he/she just wasn't happy that the cache was out in the woods, with no easy way to get to it. Maybe its just me but, i pretty much expect to find wildlife, this definitely includes snakes, when i go out into the woods.

 

One clue that i picked up on was that the OP stated that they have had other cache owners want them to change wording in their logs. To me, that kinda indicates that he/she may complain too much in their log when a cache isn't to their liking. To this day, i've never had anyone delete or want me to change a log in any way.

 

On the otherhand, to delete someone's log without some communication is in bad form itself.

[+Ambrosia]

Yeah, I'm amazed how Lep will bushwack even if he doesn't have to. Others are looking for a trail, and he's looking at his gps and into the inpenitrable brush going, "I think it's through there....no really...I can get through!".

 

We have rattlesnakes everywhere around here, it's almost silly to use the rattlesnake attribute, unless it's for visitors I suppose. Heck, rattlesnakes use trails just like we humans do, so I'm not sure how anyone would cache if we thought too much about snakes.

 

I have a hard time passing judgement on this particular complaint, however, without reading the log in question. It's all how you word it, as others have said. Unfortunately, since cache owners have the right to delete people's logs, some owners take that to extreme. I personally like the history and info in each log. There have been very few times that I've deleted a log, and unless it is something that is an emergency situation compromising the cache, I've always asked the cacher to delete the offending parts themselves.

[bogleman]

mmmmm thorns now that is something to complain about. I have a few "way off trail" caches (no snakes) and the folks who find them seem to enjoy themselves.

 

I've only deleted one found it log and one note - I got the impression the finder had never even been to the state let alone to my cache, the other was a blatant rant and I sent an email explaining why I deleted the note. Ultimately the listing review belongs to the cache owner so they have the final say.

[+Knight2000]

Yeah, I'm amazed how Lep will bushwack even if he doesn't have to. Others are looking for a trail, and he's looking at his gps and into the inpenitrable brush going, "I think it's through there....no really...I can get through!".

 

I also really appreciated their post. Its amazing how caching can be so many different things to different people.

[+thedeadpirate]

I don't believe in arbitrarily deleting logs. I've only deleted 2 logs. One gave up the location of the cache. So I deleted the log immediately and shot off an email explaining the situation to the cacher, who subsequently relogged sans the additional info. The other was a double post by a new cacher, but only after a few emails and letting the double post stay for over a month.

 

I did consider arbitrarily deleting a log once though. I placed what I considered a very respectful cache in a park in a town with no caches. Shortly thereafter I received a very holier than thou dnf log. The cacher spouted off about why he hated caches of that type and how he would have put a much better cache there.

 

After I cooled off a bit, I decided he was entitled to his opinion and let it stand. The funny thing is he logged a find a week later and then I started getting find logs that mentioned this particular cacher bringing them to the cache to find it.

 

Anyway, the long and short of it is that whether you agree with someone's opinion or not, a find is a find. If the log doesn't compromise the cache, it should stand. And DNF logs are just as important part of the cache's history as finds.

Edited May 1, 2007 by GeoBain

[+Harry Dolphin]

On the other fin, as The Leprechauns points out, difficulty and terrain ratings are there to warn cache hunters. If you don't like bushwhacking, then avoid those caches! (Presuming that the caches were properly rated.) I've done a few half mile bushwhacks. They were fun! I do not do abandoned raiload trestles. DNF. But I wouldn't issue safety warnings on them. I bushwhacked a few hundred feet up a mountain on Saturday, and met a bear. Great cache! No need to issue safety warnings. Cache was properly rated, and if you go into the forests around here, you will meet bears!

[+ShockMonkey]

It is too bad that your log was deleted. The diversity of cache logs makes for good reading. I love the occasional bee attack or cop waiting at the car to tell someone there trespassing. You speak of having concerns that this cacher is vindictive and my delete other logs you have made on his caches or even disturb your caches. I hope that just posting your opinion of safety would not stir this type reaction. I am wondering what really was said. Look on the bright side. It was just a DNF.

[+briansnat]

I'm sure Briansnat was referring to the OP and i of course have to agree with his assessment.

 

The OP himself said the log was deleted "because I complained about the cache...".

 

Anyway, to address the point of this thread, there are very few valid reasons for deleting logs. They include phony logs, logs with profanity or other inappropriate content and logs with blatant, unwanted spoilers (though in the last case I would ask the finder to change the log first).

 

Sanitizing your cache's logs by deleting any critical comments, whether valid or not, is just plain pathetic. If the comments are unwarranted, they will only reflect poorly on the person writing the log. If they are valid, then other geocachers deserve to have that information.

Edited May 2, 2007 by briansnat

[+Totem Clan]

I don't think they should have deleted the log out of hand, but I also didn't read what you wrote. If it was disrespectful they may have felt offended.

 

As far as the dangerous part. That's what the disclaimer on every cache page is all about.

 

One things for sure, you wouldn't do much caching at all up here if you don't like bushwhacking and/or snakes.

[Clan Riffster]

if you don't like caches far out in the woods, with no trail and in prime rattlesnake habitat, stay away from my caches.

Amen, Brother! Off the top of my head, I can't think of more than a couple of my hides which don't contain the thorns, ticks, snakes & poisonous plants attributes.

(Snakes! In Florida! Whoo'da thunk it?)

 

Edit to add: No, I won't delete your logs if you complain about snakes near my caches.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+geomann1]

if you don't like caches far out in the woods, with no trail and in prime rattlesnake habitat, stay away from my caches.

Amen, Brother! Off the top of my head, I can't think of more than a couple of my hides which don't contain the thorns, ticks, snakes & poisonous plants attributes.

(Snakes! In Florida! Whoo'da thunk it?)

 

Edit to add: No, I won't delete your logs if you complain about snakes near my caches.

 

Pretty much everywhere in Florida is prime habitat for poisonous snakes, spiders, etc. I suspect that the cache in question was not particularly dangerous. No harm in mentioning the snake concern in the log, and deleting it was way too extreme. In my opinion, if a cache involves significant bushwhacking, it should be mentioned in the log, so people can make the decision whether or not to attempt the find. We all have our risk tolerance. I would go for it. My wife would not.

[+ArriBlossom]

If it were my cache I wouldn't have deleted it. Whiners and complainers deserve to be heard too.

 

Sheesh, if you don't like caches far out in the woods, with no trail and in prime rattlesnake habitat, stay away from my caches. That describes about half of my hides.

 

No kidding! And here's proof that Brian doesn't delete logs from whiners on his cache pages.

 

Of course, in my case, it is not the placement of the cache that is dangerous; it was me, someone who is well aware that she is not very graceful and is, quite frankly, a klutz in the best of situations, who was out of line to attempt Brian's cache so carelessly. I have limitations and while I acknowledge them, I refuse to accept them.

 

I'm also very stubborn. I WILL get this cache! And every other one that interests me, regardless of rattlesnakes and whatnot!

 

Right after my leg heals.

[+egami]

Considering how large the geocaching community is there is undoubtedly a large segment of people that are unaware of these types of dangers in their own back yard let alone if they are vactioning and caching. If a cache takes you to a location where there is an elevated potential for danger it should be noted in the cache description, imo.

[+StarBrand]

I wouldn't delete such a log - particularly a DNF over simple critical remarks.

 

Having said that, I see no reason to mention on many of my caches that prairie rattlesnakes are common - especially when you are out on the prairie. Or that rocks are on mountains. If anybody feels I am misleading folks - you are welcome to post your own warnings in logs and notes.

[+ThirstyMick]

Sheesh, if you don't like caches far out in the woods, with no trail and in prime rattlesnake habitat, stay away from my caches. That describes about half of my hides.

 

and thank you for that Usually a mile of bushwacking up a rocky, thorny hill with all sorts of poisonous critters ends at a great cache (no muggles out here!) with an unbelieveable view; that you would have missed entirely if you stuck to the trails. It amazing how many times since I've started geocaching i have said "THIS is NEW JERSEY?!?!"

 

I'd have left the log though, there are folks who would appreciate knowing what you had to say so they could avoid it if they so please..

[+StarBrand]

Considering how large the geocaching community is there is undoubtedly a large segment of people that are unaware of these types of dangers in their own back yard let alone if they are vactioning and caching. If a cache takes you to a location where there is an elevated potential for danger it should be noted in the cache description, imo.

 

Warning - Sarcasm follows:

 

"Please note that to access this cache you will likely have to merge into traffic on I-80 and negotiate an exit - this will put you at greater risk of death due to vehicular accident - Please keep this in mind while searching this cache"

 

Just how far do you want to take that thought??

[+ThirstyMick]

Considering how large the geocaching community is there is undoubtedly a large segment of people that are unaware of these types of dangers in their own back yard let alone if they are vactioning and caching. If a cache takes you to a location where there is an elevated potential for danger it should be noted in the cache description, imo.

 

Warning - Sarcasm follows:

 

"Please note that to access this cache you will likely have to merge into traffic on I-80 and negotiate an exit - this will put you at greater risk of death due to vehicular accident - Please keep this in mind while searching this cache"

 

Just how far do you want to take that thought??

 

What section of I-80? Have you ever driven in NJ, some of our interchanges are NUTS. I'm thinking where 80, hits 46, hits 21, hits 20, and sort of hits the Garden State parkway you can get to any road from any of the other roads, but if you've never navigated the interchange before you might need to u-turn a few times, and about u-turns, don't get me started on jughandles! I'd say the warning might not be uncalled for.

Edited May 2, 2007 by ThirstyMick

[Clan Riffster]

Just how far do you want to take that thought??

I was thinking on adding the following to all my cache pages:

DANGER!!! All of my hides are fairly close to the Equator, (geographically speaking), and as such, when searching for them you are placing yourself in much greater risk of being struck by falling space debris! If having a $5,000.00 adjustable wrench hit you on the head at terminal velocity is not your cup of tea, please avoid this cache!

Then I decided I was too lazy to edit them all, and I decided to let Darwinism resolve such issues.

[+geomann1]

"Please note that to access this cache you will likely have to merge into traffic on I-80 and negotiate an exit - this will put you at greater risk of death due to vehicular accident - Please keep this in mind while searching this cache"

 

Just how far do you want to take that thought??

 

What section of I-80? Have you ever driven in NJ, some of our interchanges are NUTS. I'm thinking where 80, hits 46, hits 21, hits 20, and sort of hits the Garden State parkway you can get to any road from any of the other roads, but if you've never navigated the interchange before you might need to u-turn a few times, and about u-turns, don't get me started on jughandles! I'd say the warning might not be uncalled for.

 

In all seriousness, it probably is true that the most dangerous thing about geocaching is the drive to the cache site.

[+egami]

Considering how large the geocaching community is there is undoubtedly a large segment of people that are unaware of these types of dangers in their own back yard let alone if they are vactioning and caching. If a cache takes you to a location where there is an elevated potential for danger it should be noted in the cache description, imo.

 

Warning - Sarcasm follows:

 

"Please note that to access this cache you will likely have to merge into traffic on I-80 and negotiate an exit - this will put you at greater risk of death due to vehicular accident - Please keep this in mind while searching this cache"

 

Just how far do you want to take that thought??

 

I'll assume that since that is sarcasm that you understand my point.

[+StarBrand]

 

....

I'll assume that since that is sarcasm that you understand my point.

 

Your assumption is incorrect.

 

Seriously - how far should we take it?

Edited May 2, 2007 by StarBrand

[+egami]

Seriously - how far should we take it?

 

Take it as far as you want.

 

If you think it's a bad idea to denote potential dangers in an area similar to what I mentioned above then by all means that's your perogative.

 

I'd sleep quite well knowing I placed a cache in a local abandoned rock quarry where rattlesnakes are common and Joe Geocacher from uptown New York gets bit because he isn't aware of the fact that there are rattlesnakes in Iowa.

 

What was I thinking by suggesting such a ridiculous courtesy?

[+StarBrand]

Seriously - how far should we take it?

 

Take it as far as you want.

 

If you think it's a bad idea to denote potential dangers in an area similar to what I mentioned above then by all means that's your perogative.

 

I'd sleep quite well knowing I placed a cache in a local abandoned rock quarry where rattlesnakes are common and Joe Geocacher from uptown New York gets bit because he isn't aware of the fact that there are rattlesnakes in Iowa.

 

What was I thinking by suggesting such a ridiculous courtesy?

sigh..........

[+egami]

sigh..........

 

Fight fire with fire?

 

Sorry, but I failed to see the point in your seemingly critical view of my suggestion is all. It should of been relatively apparent by my suggestion that I wasn't insinuating anything remotely as ludicrous as your sarcastic reply took things.

 

And it wasn't like I was asking for a GC.com mandate it on cache submissions or something.

Edited May 2, 2007 by egami

[+StarBrand]

sigh..........

 

Fight fire with fire?

 

Sorry, but I failed to see the point in your seemingly critical view of my suggestion is all. It should of been relatively apparent by my suggestion that I wasn't insinuating anything remotely as ludicrous as your sarcastic reply took things.

 

And it wasn't like I was asking for a GC.com mandate it on cache submissions or something.

I was just trying to get an idea of what "dangers" are worth mentioning and which are not. My point being that, for example, I don't think twice about prairie rattle snakes - they are a fact of life and everyday existence on the prairie. Hardly worth mentioning when you stand a far greater chance of being killed on the way to the cache in a car.

 

Of course abondoned quarries have snakes in them - duh! (to me anyway) - I would no more think to mention that then I would rocks on a mountain slope.

 

So I ask - just how far to you intend this suggestion to go? (honestly)

[+egami]

I was just trying to get an idea of what "dangers" are worth mentioning and which are not. My point being that, for example, I don't think twice about prairie rattle snakes - they are a fact of life and everyday existence on the prairie. Hardly worth mentioning when you stand a far greater chance of being killed on the way to the cache in a car.

 

Of course abondoned quarries have snakes in them - duh! (to me anyway) - I would no more think to mention that then I would rocks on a mountain slope.

 

So I ask - just how far to you intend this suggestion to go? (honestly)

 

I still don't understand the question considering the fact that it was stated that it was simply my opinion. As far as those that might consider it...how far they go is up to them.

 

While you might be all-knowing about your surroundings you also might be the type to stumble blindly into the "hood" in downtime L.A. on a trip wearing the wrong gang colors and the wrong kind of skin color....would you want a heads up on that? Or would you rather see how much "street cred" an out-of-towner has the hard way?

 

Again, I am not talking about "obvious" hazards that are ubiquitous in nature. If someone can't seriously read that suggestion and delineate what might be a good note to add to a cache then I suppose them going to the extreme you suggested would be better than disregarding it as a whole.

Edited May 2, 2007 by egami

[+StarBrand]

I was just trying to get an idea of what "dangers" are worth mentioning and which are not. My point being that, for example, I don't think twice about prairie rattle snakes - they are a fact of life and everyday existence on the prairie. Hardly worth mentioning when you stand a far greater chance of being killed on the way to the cache in a car.

 

Of course abondoned quarries have snakes in them - duh! (to me anyway) - I would no more think to mention that then I would rocks on a mountain slope.

 

So I ask - just how far to you intend this suggestion to go? (honestly)

 

I still don't understand the question considering the fact that it was stated that it was simply my opinion. As far as those that might consider it...how far they go is up to them.

 

While you might be all-knowing about your surroundings you also might be the type to stumble blindly into the "hood" in downtime L.A. on a trip wearing the wrong gang colors and the wrong kind of skin color....would you want a heads up on that? Or would you rather see how much "street cred" an out-of-towner has the hard way?

 

Again, I am not talking about "obvious" hazards that are ubiquitous in nature. If someone can't seriously read that suggestion and delineate what might be a good note to add to a cache then I suppose them going to the extreme you suggested would be better than disregarding it as a whole.

ok - chill - just asking.

[+baloo&bd]

Maybe we need to add attributes to the forums, they seem to have more hazrads than most caches lately.

[+geomann1]

It just doesn't hurt to be more conservative and mention potential life-threatening hazards even if for the locals they are a mundane fact of life. Wheres the harm in that? How much effort does it take to type "cache involves considerable off trail hiking in an area containing rattlesnakes and other dangerous wildlife".

 

Yes, there may be some validity in the natural selection argument that one should let nature runs its course with idiots who would blindly trek into the woods oblivious to the harzards, but it really isn't good for the sport to have people hurt or killed. Since people from outside an area may visit a cache site, I'm not sure what one is proving by not providing a basic local knowledge warning.

 

Based on my observations, I've taken the position that it is necessary to spoon feed people some common sense in my cache logs, such as don't mess with the sprinkler heads, no need to open any electrical equipment, no need to dig up the vegetation, etc. For one cache, I had to add, there is no need to break anything open to find the cache, after I found cracked pieces of concrete around the subsurban site.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Again, I am not talking about "obvious" hazards that are ubiquitous in nature. ...

 

No such thing as an obvious hazard that you need to warn people about.

 

Personally If I placed a cache in an abadnoned minefield I think that would be worth noting. Or more realisticly an old gunnery range. I hear that they used to test Naval Guns at one of our Buttes here in Idaho. Unexpended ordinace would be possible. That would be worth a warning. The Scorpions, Rattlesnakes, and Angry Ranchers are just part of the land scape.

 

In Iowa it's not the rattlesnakes that will get me. It's the Corn.

[+welch]

Whiners and complainers deserve to be heard too.

Im not sure if you are referring to him being that way or not.

 

I didnt see his original log or how it was worded. But, if worded correctly i view it as helpful tips for a future cacher. The "warning" would be acceptable if worded correctly. I dont know if i would complain in the log though. I guess it would depend.

 

Again the difficulty/terrain rating should be appropriate. I think the OP's original intent was to help future cachers.

 

Again, i dont know how it was worded. But i have made posts such as "please be careful here there are many large rocks and could be dangerous".

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

If someone complains that a geocache is outside where there are bugs, snakes, thorns and whatever, that sounds like a whine to me. I don't know what this person's log said, but if it was in a negative sounding tone it could been seen as a complaint. However, having said that I probably wouldn't have deleted someones log even for that. Its often apperent they either just weren't prepared enough, or just didn't enjoy themselves for some reason. *shrug* oh well.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Here a while back, i have come to the general conclusion that a lot of cachers don't like anyone pointing out possible hazards or problems with their caches.

 

it is like unto calling their firstborn a "nappy headed ho" or some such.

 

Best just to carry on.

 

If there is a REAL hazard, like say, the cache site is clearly marked by the stinking bodies of the last twelve cachers who have been actually BITTEN by the rattlesnakes in whose den the cache was placed, send a note to the reviewer or post SBA. Otherwise best to leave out anything that can even remotely be misinterpreted as negative.

 

Some people are sensitive. You won't win.

[+egami]

....Again, I am not talking about "obvious" hazards that are ubiquitous in nature. ...

 

No such thing as an obvious hazard that you need to warn people about.

 

That's precisely my point.

 

Personally If I placed a cache in an abadnoned minefield I think that would be worth noting. Or more realisticly an old gunnery range. I hear that they used to test Naval Guns at one of our Buttes here in Idaho. Unexpended ordinace would be possible. That would be worth a warning. The Scorpions, Rattlesnakes, and Angry Ranchers are just part of the land scape.

 

That depends...while scorpions and rattlesnakes are part of your landscape they might not be expected by the suburban family from Chicago on their first interstate vacation in the family sedan.

 

Just a thought...

 

In Iowa it's not the rattlesnakes that will get me. It's the Corn.

 

Children of the corn...

[+Totem Clan]

So should every cache ever placed in Alaska have included..... "

Warning this cache is in Alaska. All of Alaska even the cities contain bears and moose. Both have been know the kill humans. Cache at your own risk"

Or maybe for Texas and Oklahoma every cache should read.....

"Warning you are now in prime habitat for rattlesnake, black widows, and the brown recluse. All three or these creatures that can and do inhabit the woods, plains and all urban environments. Cache at your own risk."

How about mountain lions in the suburbs of California, or black bears only a 30 minutes car from downtown Manhattan. The point is we are surrounded by "dangerous" wildlife even in our homes.

 

I agree if there is a know danger post it, but by the logic put forward by some in this thread every single cache would have to have some variety of a warning on it. If that were the case, many folks would just breeze over them as mundane reading in order to get to what the 'need' to know. Too much warning has been proven to be worse than not enough. Folks get conditioned to ignore the "unneeded" warnings and don't notice the real thing.

[+StarBrand]

After re-reading this thread my wife and I were reminded of the first time I took my Mom & Dad out Geocaching with us. We went to 2 new caches in the area both placed about 100 or so feet off of a dirt road out on general prairie terrain. Mom had a blast! Then I stopped and showed her 2 of my caches - both placed under/near sagebrush far out in grassy areas. She was proud of herself for finding one of them "on her own". While heading out to a third of my hides we spotted an old dried up snakeskin. She freaked out and ran back to the car. I explained that rattlesnakes are quite common, out on the prairie. She refused to step one foot off of the paved road for the rest of the day. Dad continued to follow us around and we did not see or hear a snake all day.

 

Imagine if I had "warned" my Mom about snakes early on. She would have missed out on the fun of finding those first 4 caches.

 

I have seen estimates that there are on average about 4 snakes per acre of prairie across this region. They exist but are hardly a threat. They will not chase you and if given a chance will always flee from a human. Fact is, according to Reptile Gardens in South Dakota, 80% of all rattlesnake bites in the United states are to males aged 16 - 24. Alcohol was involved in about 55% of all rattlesnake bites. 40% of bites were to people "hunting" the snakes. 90% of all bites occured to people who had seen or heard the snake before the strike. It is easy to conclude that "messing" around with snakes is an invitation to trouble. Walking through where they live is a day to day everyday occurance.

 

So maybe I will just add the following to all my caches: "Wildlife is wild and potentially dangerous - do not approach" - or maybe we all kind of knew that already.

[+egami]

I agree if there is a know danger post it, but by the logic put forward by some in this thread every single cache would have to have some variety of a warning on it.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that. In fact, that's an extreme exaggeration.

 

There are certain areas that are more dangerous than others. Those areas merit warning. It takes extremely little effort to post a single line in a cache location that assists out of area cachers with localized dangers for the cache. It's really not that complex or time consuming and it most certainly wouldn't be necessary for the majority of caches.

 

And again, no one is asking this even be mandated. It's simply out of the concept of courtesy.

 

This is getting blown way out of proportion with the ridiculous replies insinuating that there is some sort of detriment in this concept as is...

Edited May 3, 2007 by egami

[+Totem Clan]

I don't think anyone has suggested that. In fact, that's an extreme exaggeration.

 

Yes it has been suggested.

 

I don't think it's a good idea to subject your fellow geocachers, their friends, family and pets to danger and discomfort when the only motive is to make the cache harder to get to. It's better to make a cache harder to find by being creative rather than cruel.

 

Considering how large the geocaching community is there is undoubtedly a large segment of people that are unaware of these types of dangers in their own back yard let alone if they are vactioning and caching. If a cache takes you to a location where there is an elevated potential for danger it should be noted in the cache description, imo.

 

It just doesn't hurt to be more conservative and mention potential life-threatening hazards even if for the locals they are a mundane fact of life. Wheres the harm in that? How much effort does it take to type "cache involves considerable off trail hiking in an area containing rattlesnakes and other dangerous wildlife".

 

 

That depends...while scorpions and rattlesnakes are part of your landscape they might not be expected by the suburban family from Chicago on their first interstate vacation in the family sedan.

 

Just a thought...

 

Maybe not to the point I took it, but that certainly made my point. Warnings can be pushed to far in a hurry. There is already a disclaimer on every cache page. We as owners should have to list any and all hazards that nature may have in store for the cacher.

Why stop at warning the city folk about snakes. What about the rapidly forming thunderstorms on the plains and the accompany lightning and hail. What about dead-falls in the woods. The list is endless. Where do we draw the line?