Caches and obvious safety concerns...

[Pacific NW]

It would be great to have a "Report Unsafe Cache" button on each cache page to let the administrators and reviewers know of obvious safety concerns.

 

Maybe have it so that once you push the button you're given a small box to describe your concerns.

 

Just a thought. Thanks for the consideration!

[+Stunod]

Use the "Needs Archived" log type. This will send a message to the cache owner AND the proper admins.

[+Miragee]

If you have concerns, you can either email the Reviewer privately (which is what I would do), or you can post an SBA (Should Be Archived) note.

[Pacific NW]

Well hey, you learn something new every day!

 

Thanks for the tips.

[Keystone]

Remember to tie your "needs archived" log to a listing guideline that's been violated. "It's unsafe" is not a listing guideline violation in and of itself. Were it otherwise, there would be no rock climbing caches and no caches on islands in the middle of whitewater rivers. And that would be sad.

[Pto]

Yes, and without further details I cant tell If your worried because you had to cross a wet log in a stream, and thought that was " obviosly dangerous" or found a live pwerline at ground zero....???

Walking in the woods on a trail can be "dangerous" all by itself-

I think and SBA is a bit extreme unless it violates guidelines, or is otherwise out of line.....

 

Just my .02

 

More info?

[+Cache Liberation Front]

As alluded to earlier, where does it say geocaching is supposed to be safe? We've found numerous caches that are dangerous, yet still within the guidelines of Groundspeak's listed rules, and we consider most of these to be the fun ones. And isn't "dangerous" highly subjective, anyways? A cache that requires rappelling gear would be dangerous to us, but safe as get out to a pro.

 

Just my two cents,

MrW.

[+KoosKoos]

As posted, unless there's a guideline violation, there's no reason to use the SBA for something you think isn't safe.

 

If I came across something that was dangerous and the terrain rating didn't indicate that I should expect that, I might include something in my log or drop a note to the hider.

 

The fact that a 100' cliff is near the cliff is nice to have mentioned by the hider (to watch yourself), but it's no reason to not put a cache there.

 

What did you find that was "unsafe" anyway?

[+Trucker Lee]

Unsafe as unwisely placed in a subway, tied to the third rail?

 

Cachers have agreed to the disclaimer, and they hunt at their own peril. Each person has different capabilities and different limits. What is unsafe for one may be no problem to another, who is to decide what is unsafe? Hiders are expected to use a little common sense, and at least advise of possible hazards on the cache page so seekers may go prepared (ie Need climbing gear or wings).

 

Read the cache page and prior logs closely, then decide if it is for you. But don't even think you have the ability or right to decide what is unsafe for me. I am an adult, have been for some time now, and that is my responsibility.

 

That said, yeah, maybe there should be a restriction on caches along busy highways with no parking near, just as caches near railroad tracks are disallowed. In that case, stopping not only endangers the cacher, but the unwitting motorist coming around the curve. But on these, I could always just put my foot back on the throttle and watch the arrow swing around as I go past.

[Pacific NW]

My concern is over those caches that are obviously unsafe and placed against the guidelines. For example, I've come across a cache located on railroad tracks in an industrial area.

 

If I encounter situations like that I'll use the "Should Be Archived" choice. As I wasn't aware of that, I was thinking it would be nice to have a button or way to communicate this to the site folks.

 

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers here. I'm all for personal responsibility and common sense, too.

[+TrailGators]

My concern is over those caches that are obviously unsafe and placed against the guidelines. For example, I've come across a cache located on railroad tracks in an industrial area.

Were the tracks active? If they were then this is clearly a guideline violation and should be reported.

[+Miragee]

My concern is over those caches that are obviously unsafe and placed against the guidelines. For example, I've come across a cache located on railroad tracks in an industrial area.

TG asks a good question. Were the tracks still active? I found a cache when I was in Colorado that was placed on some old tracks in a light industrial area. It had been years since those tracks had been used. It was a fun cache in a cute container that fit the location.

 

If the tracks are active, the cache is definitely against the guidelines and should be Archived.

[+Trucker Lee]

My concern is over those caches that are obviously unsafe and placed against the guidelines. For example, I've come across a cache located on railroad tracks in an industrial area.

Were the tracks active? If they were then this is clearly a guideline violation and should be reported.

 

Big.foot, in that instance I can understand your concern. As TG points out, if the tracks are active this is a violation, for safety and legal purposes (RR right-of-way is not public access land). It is on that the safety question hinges, but we need to keep in mind that even though the RR is not using that line, entry may still be ill-advised. We never know when they may push a string of unneeded cars down there for storage purposes.

 

If the line is unused in your area, perhaps with a little urging the city or county could get the RR to relinquish the property for a bike/hike trail and park.

[+Prime Suspect]

My concern is over those caches that are obviously unsafe and placed against the guidelines. For example, I've come across a cache located on railroad tracks in an industrial area.

 

If I encounter situations like that I'll use the "Should Be Archived" choice. As I wasn't aware of that, I was thinking it would be nice to have a button or way to communicate this to the site folks.

 

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers here. I'm all for personal responsibility and common sense, too.

Caches near tracks may be dangerous, but they are a guideline violation because of trespassing and other legal issues.

[lakeuk]

I'd be inclined to notified the cache owner in the first instance to give them a chance to respond or recify the concern, if no responce or concern not agreed then a note to the admin for them to take forward.

 

It's too easy for there to problems with caches and most cache owners can sort them out if notified

[+Cheminer Will]

Remember to tie your "needs archived" log to a listing guideline that's been violated. "It's unsafe" is not a listing guideline violation in and of itself. Were it otherwise, there would be no rock climbing caches and no caches on islands in the middle of whitewater rivers. And that would be sad.

 

Good point! Also people have very different ideas of what is unsafe. I have found caches with previous logs decrying how unsafe the placement of the cache is. When I find it, I grab it easily and can't see anything at all unsafe about it. If someone feels at risk going after a cache, they should just use their judgment, skip it, and go on to the next one.

 

I hike alone on trails in bear country. Sometimes those trails are also steep and/or next to sharp drop-offs. I don't think that means the trail should never have been created. It does not mean the trail should be closed/archived because our idea of unsafe may differ.

[Gimbal T Kumquat]

Came across this issue twice recently.

 

The first cache had its parking area located on a bend of a steep, busy road in the mountains of West Virginia, speed limit 55. There were tons of great spots for caches, big and small off away from the highway, including woods, trees, and even ruins of an old structure within feet of the parking area. The cache, however, was stashed inside the end of the guardrail, where the road curves sharpest and a guardrail begins because the DOT realizes that it is needed to prevent/protect drivers from veering off the road. In other words, the spot most likely to be impacted by an oncoming vehicle. As I was replacing the cache I was hit in the face by a piece of gravel thrown up by a truck barreling past only inches away. If I’d had kids with me I would have had to make them stay in the car for this cache.

 

A few miles away, on the same busy road full of trucks, another cache was apparently also in or near the guardrail at the bottom of a hill/curve. If I’d stopped/slowed to check it out, I would have been rear-ended by the ubiquitous speeding dumptruck* behind me. A few hundred feet ahead, I pulled into a wide spot on the road which presumably was the parking area for the cache. Thought about maybe walking back, but that would have meant walking on the traffic side of the guardrail with traffic roaring by.

 

I don’t get it. This is West Virginia. We have more wilderness and rural areas than like, any other state east of the Mississippi. We also have steep and narrow roads congested with heavy coal/rock trucks 24 hours a day. Yet people place caches within inches of the road? Why?

 

* You gotta live here to understand the whole coal truck and dump truck thing, at times they are every 3rd or 4th vehicle on the road in parts of the state.

[+Renegade Knight]

Use the "Needs Archived" log type. This will send a message to the cache owner AND the proper admins.

egads man. One mans safety issue is another mans fun. Given all the non issues complained about in the forums I'd rather go with the OP's post. Give them a place to vent that warns all like minded people but which lets the cache live in peace.

[+Renegade Knight]

... a guardrail begins because the DOT realizes that it is needed to prevent/protect drivers from veering off the road. In other words, the spot most likely to be impacted by an oncoming vehicle. ...

 

Guardrail is both expensive and an obstical that can be hit by cars and cause a lot of damage. The only reason a state uses them is when a car leaving the road is better off hitting the guardrail than whatever else is there.

 

It's also a function of how busy the road is. Busier roads get more protection than less busy roads because the odds of an accident happening go up with increasing traffic. That said guard rail in any one spot is not normally an indication that that spot is a nasty spot in the road. Just nasty if you leave the road.

 

Of course if the spot you are talking about has mangled guard rail rather than clean and unbent rail...it's a nasty spot as well. Those locations do exist.

[Gimbal T Kumquat]

Guardrail is both expensive and an obstical that can be hit by cars and cause a lot of damage. The only reason a state uses them is when a car leaving the road is better off hitting the guardrail than whatever else is there.

 

It's also a function of how busy the road is. Busier roads get more protection than less busy roads because the odds of an accident happening go up with increasing traffic. That said guard rail in any one spot is not normally an indication that that spot is a nasty spot in the road. Just nasty if you leave the road.

 

Right. If a vehicle lost control on that curve, the guardrail at the exact spot the cache is hidden would be the impact point. Not a smart place to put a geocache.

 

Another issue with hiding a cache in the end of a guardrail is that it just looks suspicious as hell to passing drivers, who are therefore very distracted and may take their focus off the road. All in all, this cache placement was, in my opinion, ill thought-out.

[+Prime Suspect]

If I’d had kids with me I would have had to make them stay in the car for this cache.

No one ever said that all caches should be suitable for children.

[+flask]

remember, boys and girls: not every cache needs to be safe.

 

unsafe caches should be marked accordingly for those that enjoy them.

 

caches in apparent violation of guidelines may in fact have appropriate permissions and cautions.

[+Renegade Knight]

Guardrail is both expensive and an obstical that can be hit by cars and cause a lot of damage. The only reason a state uses them is when a car leaving the road is better off hitting the guardrail than whatever else is there.

 

It's also a function of how busy the road is. Busier roads get more protection than less busy roads because the odds of an accident happening go up with increasing traffic. That said guard rail in any one spot is not normally an indication that that spot is a nasty spot in the road. Just nasty if you leave the road.

 

Right. If a vehicle lost control on that curve, the guardrail at the exact spot the cache is hidden would be the impact point. Not a smart place to put a geocache.... All in all, this cache placement was, in my opinion, ill thought-out.

 

They put sidewalks next to roads and homes next to roads as well.

 

If a car veered off the road into someones front yard and through the house exactly when people were walking buy and exactly when the home owners were in that very room. Well that's just a dumb place to put a house and pedestrians and a sidewalk.

 

Your logic is solid given the if you put in front of it. If I was in the right spot when Skylab fell, it would have hurt. Things do happen, houses to get hit by cars, pedestrians on sidewalks do get hurt. Just not often in any one place. While I don't enjoy front yard caches, they are viable, so are most guardrail caches.

[vagabond]

Yep IF the dog wouldn't have stopped to smell the roses he would have caught the rabbit

 

Come to think of it almost every guardrail cache I've done has been on a dead end street

I cant even remember doing one on a busy highway on a curve

Edited July 29, 2007 by vagabond