Changing regular cache to subscriber only.

[+jerryo]

This may have come up already. Frankly I don’t care as I’m having a rant.

 

Some newbie has just attempted one of my harder caches having got a massive two finds under his belt. He clearly didn’t read the page and has b***ered it up and lost a geocoin. I have now changed it to a subscriber-only cache because I have taken my bat home, and I’m thinking about doing it with more of my caches as some folk aren’t all that careful. I know accidents happen, but this guy could’ve killed himself in the process; he’d have ended up with his legs sticking out of the water and his head in the mud. And drowning. Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this? It's this cache.

[+JeremyR]

Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this? It's this cache.

Can't see it until someone feeds the hamsters but I'm not sure making it a MOC will make any difference. I was a premium member before I found my first cache. I'd imagine plenty of others were too, or at least before they were in any way 'experienced'. And besides, just because a cacher has only a few finds, doesn't mean they're not savvy about the dangers involved in any given cache.

 

What about ramping up the in-your-face this is a dangerous cache warning on the listing? (don't know if you have done already - I can't see it ATM because of the techie gremlins)

 

[Edit] Actually, it's pretty obvious that it shouldn't be attempted by the unwary... I guess maybe it's just a genuine accident/mistake or a case of inflated estimation of ability?

Edited October 12, 2007 by JeremyR

[+Lotho]

Im not a member, could you post his logs and the details fo the cache?

[+jerryo]

Im not a member, could you post his logs and the details fo the cache?

Oh Pooh! This isn't going to work. Sorry Lotho, I'm going to put it back the way it was. I don't want to take it out on people in general, just muppets in particular and I guess that wasn't the way.

This thread could be closed, I suppose...

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

Im not a member, could you post his logs and the details fo the cache?

 

Thought id help out

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Muggle This!

A cache by jerryo

The cache is located along the River Wear where the riverside path leads towards Durham. This is NOT suitable for children to do although they are allowed to go along to laugh.

 

The Pros:

 

It’s not a puzzle

or a micro.

The coordinates are for the cache itself.

No multis to get first.

And no confusing things to find.

Just a straightforward cache

with good GPS coverage and accuracy.

Parking is easy and about ½ a mile away from the cache.

The cache is easily located; about 4 inches away from you at the coordinates.

The Cons:

 

It’s here

 

The cache container is a white length of 50mm tube with lids at either end. It is vital that the lid(s) are replaced properly and turned to their fully locked position. The container itself is clamped to a, er, length of wood using three strong plastic clamps. REMOVE IT FROM THE CLAMPS BEFORE OPENING ONE OF THE LIDS OR I'LL LOSE ANOTHER TB. Even though you might be able to see it, you CAN’T get to it from here so don’t go pushing it around or improvising pokey sticks as it’ll end up dangling from its short anchoring nylon tether – and you’ll still not be able to get it. Or you’ll break your nails. THE CLIPS ARE ATTACHED SO THE PIPE PULLS OUT SIDEWAYS and all retaining clips should be used to clamp the pipe back in position.

Speaking of dangling, this is what you can see while your hanging around a waitin’ for the muggles to pass - over. And if you look down you can see where you’re going if you make a cock up.

Just to prove it’s there, here it is.

There's one travel bug here now, my G E O R G E CITO Geocoin, who wants to travel to 4-5/*4-5* caches, and this is the ideal place to put those “racing bugs” that need to be nobbled. Not that I'm advising anyone to try to find the cache of course.

 

I’ve checked the “dangerous area” icon: this is a warning to be careful out there:

 

You may need to return with specialised equipment to get the cache. It’s harder than it looks. If you can't put it back, don't try to get it, please. To claim the cache the logbook MUST be signed.

 

If you do log it, please email me the Greek letter of the alphabet that is written in the front page of the logbook. While this isn’t compulsory, I’ll be more likely to believe you! Obviously don't put it in the log.

 

Any find that involves damage to the cache or the structure it’s on will be permanently deleted.

 

One of the reasons for taking it out of the river was that, when I was in it in February, I think I contracted a case of Giardiasis. This is more entertainingly known in the USA as Beaver Fever and, while it’s not life-threatening, it gives you an upset tum for a bit. About six months, actually. It’s more prevalent in cooler waters so, unless you’re an eejit and take the plunge in February like wot I done, when the water’s a balmy 6°C, the Wear should be ok. Notwithstanding that, no-one’s gone for it for over a year so I had to do something.

 

Crash cache well.

 

If you want to find this location then that’s up to you but you assume all risks arising in connection with seeking any cache or any other related activity. In the same way that reading a book about Everest isn’t telling you to go there, this page merely gives information about a place to which I’ve been and to where you can go of your own volition. It’s entirely your choice and I will not be held liable for any claim whatsoever.

 

PLEASE READ MY LAST LOG ENTRY FOR UP TO DATE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CACHE.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

THIS IS THE LOG ENTRY

 

October 12 by colintheuk (2 found)

:I Well how do I start apart from saying your cache neds attention.

We found it ok and everything was fine but whilst doing the mission Imposable bit with legs wrapped round the railings and upside down, "it was comfortable" and with both hands free I unscrewed one end, unfortunatly whilst changing grip to unscrew the the other end it tipped down due to the string still attatched at the other end, and some of the contents tipped in the drink.

I cant say how I am to have to post this

 

REPLY

 

Cache Logs

October 12 by jerryo (685 found)

I can’t say how I am either. Perhaps your third cache should have been something less ambitious.

Well I thought I’d covered everything. It says CLEARLY in the cache description that you CAN’T get to it from here [i.e. above]. It’s entirely up to you if you want to kill yourself by attempting such a feat but I’ve now decided to make this a subscriber-only cache just to filter out some of the less experienced.

 

Back ASAP…

 

==========================================================

 

Hope this helps out

 

I think making it a premium only will help, along with slapping this guy around a bit. Looks like he might have taken his kids out while doing this one too as he has on the other two he's done. I know its a laugh to take your kids to a cache like this but not if your teaching them its ok to hang upside down from high bridges by your ankles over a river when the listing says DONT DO IT

Edited October 12, 2007 by Vodor

[+jerryo]

Cheers for your help, Vodor; however, I've put it all back the way it was for all to see and also edited the listing a bit (and my "disable cache" note). I don't want to stop people from doing it so I'll just have to chalk it down to experience. My 'coin has probably gone though: I refuse to get in the river again and catch another dose of Beaver Fever!

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

Well good luck then!

 

I dont know if its any help but I made this if you want to stick it on the bridge railings for future cachers

 

[+jerryo]

[+Lotho]

Ah, ive looked at that cache before. Ill have a read of his log..

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

I take it it isn't wheelchair accessible then?

 

Looking on the positive side, I guess they could have just gone away and said nothing, at least you know how it got screwed up!

Edited October 12, 2007 by Dorsetgal & GeoDog

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

I take it it isn't wheelchair accessible then?

 

Looking on the positive side, I guess they could have just gone away and said nothing, at least you know how it got screwed up!

 

Well not without an everglades style boat with a wheelchair conversion.

 

On the plus side the geocoin DID IN FACT travel 15 feet before it went missing. Shame it was vertically

[+Stuey]

How about going drag fishing with a very powerful magnet? (assuming the coin is magnetic)

[Alan White]

Hey! That's gives me a great idea about how to get to an almost identical cache that we've DNFed twice. We can see it, we just can't reach it. Off to ebay....

[+jerryo]

I take it it isn't wheelchair accessible then?

You are a very good natured star!

Looking on the positive side, I guess they could have just gone away and said nothing, at least you know how it got screwed up!

Very true too.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this? It's this cache.

 

Its a matter of conscience if you should have set this

 

But in any task set for another individual you should take time to do some form of risk assessment. Very few individuals even if they do read the cache page will interpret it the same. In the very exponentional growth of caches do we consider them as closely these days or are we just chasing numbers.

 

Other than the photo there seems no advice on choice of suitable equipment would the average person know or be able to avail them selves of it or how to use it correctly.

 

Do you own the structure or have implicit permission for the placing!!

 

Would you feel any guilt if someone for whatever reason injured or killed themselves, and would the owner of the structure face any liability action which in turn could bring geocaching into disrepute!!

 

The whole issue revolves around your own conscience and outlook.

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this? It's this cache.

 

Its a matter of conscience if you should have set this

 

But in any task set for another individual you should take time to do some form of risk assessment. Very few individuals even if they do read the cache page will interpret it the same. In the very exponentional growth of caches do we consider them as closely these days or are we just chasing numbers.

 

Other than the photo there seems no advice on choice of suitable equipment would the average person know or be able to avail them selves of it or how to use it correctly.

 

Do you own the structure or have implicit permission for the placing!!

 

Would you feel any guilt if someone for whatever reason injured or killed themselves, and would the owner of the structure face any liability action which in turn could bring geocaching into disrepute!!

 

The whole issue revolves around your own conscience and outlook.

 

Of course he should have set the cache. There are plenty of easy caches for people to go for. The more challenging ones are up to the individuals who go looking for the cache. Its blatantly obvious what the risks are when you turn up to a bridge and realise its underneath 15 feet above a river. As long as its states that in the listing (which it does) then thats no problem.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

I take it it isn't wheelchair accessible then?

 

 

Well not without an everglades style boat with a wheelchair conversion.

 

Now there's an idea! Mind you, I'd have to get a vehicle and trailer as well ...

 

The wheelchair became a "piece of specialist equipment" when I did this cache though!

 

*Warning* this may be a spoiler for a Dorset cache!

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

[The wheelchair became a "piece of specialist equipment" when I did this cache though!

 

*Warning* this may be a spoiler for a Dorset cache!

 

One of the times where having a wheelchair to stand on came in handy. Having watched the video, what I want to know is how many times he attempted it before he realised it would be funny to record it

[+jerryo]

Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this? It's this cache.

 

Its a matter of conscience if you should have set this

 

But in any task set for another individual you should take time to do some form of risk assessment. Very few individuals even if they do read the cache page will interpret it the same. In the very exponentional growth of caches do we consider them as closely these days or are we just chasing numbers.

 

Other than the photo there seems no advice on choice of suitable equipment would the average person know or be able to avail them selves of it or how to use it correctly.

 

Do you own the structure or have implicit permission for the placing!!

 

Would you feel any guilt if someone for whatever reason injured or killed themselves, and would the owner of the structure face any liability action which in turn could bring geocaching into disrepute!!

 

The whole issue revolves around your own conscience and outlook.

You have entirely missed the point of the post. My saying “Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this?” was referring entirely to the fact that I originally intended, after this fiasco, to make the cache unavailable to non-premium cachers, not whether I should have set the thing in the first place.

 

The risk assessment is made by the finder, that’s what caching is about. You decide whether to go for a cache or not. I can’t give all the information you need – no-one can. There have been many posts about liability issues in caching and this is not the place to start another one. It's been done to death.

 

The photos are for amusement as well as showing that it is not straightforward and I care not if people can’t get to the cache; I think they shouldn’t try stupid things, though. I rely on people’s innate sense of self-confidence about whether or not they can do this, not showing off in front ot the kids.

 

Edited to add that the "Needs Climbing Gear" attribute (among others) is and was in place. I wouldn’t presume to tell someone what sort of gear they would need, only that they would need something other than, evidently, two accompanying kids and no more adults around to help if it all went t*t$ up.

 

People set Motorway Mayhem caches and don’t tell their finders not to park on the hard shoulder: it’s obvious. So’s this.

Edited October 12, 2007 by jerryo

[+Team Sieni]

Without wishing to seem too uncharitable, if you hide a cache precariously over water perhaps you should have prepared yourself for not entirely unforeseeable eventuality that it may end up in said water.

 

I don't feel very strongly about this, but the possibility that their honest apology could have been accepted with better grace did flit briefly through my mind. As I said I don't feel all that strongly and I understand that the loss of the coin is annoying, so fair dos.

 

As to whether you should have made it members only - It's your cache. Your rules.

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

Not to go overboard on this but this 'overnannying' issue thats so popular these days really gets on my nerves. At this rate how long before they fence off everest just in case someone hurts themselves etc.

 

The first time I came across this sort of thing was when I heard that some idiot busy body at one of the London councils had ordered all the Oak trees to be chopped down along a lovely tree lined street just in case a child decided to climb the tree and fell out and hurt themselves. I mean how much of a no life saddo job justifier do you have to be to come up with that one? Still I suppose they have to have people around like that to keep "points of view" going.

[+jerryo]

Without wishing to seem too uncharitable, if you hide a cache precariously over water perhaps you should have prepared yourself for not entirely unforeseeable eventuality that it may end up in said water.

 

I don't feel very strongly about this, but the possibility that their honest apology could have been accepted with better grace did flit briefly through my mind. As I said I don't feel all that strongly and I understand that the loss of the coin is annoying, so fair dos.

 

As to whether you should have made it members only - It's your cache. Your rules.

I take your point about losing stuff and I was well aware it could happen. That’s not really the issue. To be honest if I thought that the apology was really meant as such, I perhaps wouldn’t have written the OP. If it'd been me, I’d have started by saying sorry rather than tacking it on the end where it conveys not apology but more of an inconvenience to the finder. More to the point, I’d also have sent an email, which hasn’t happened. It’s only a coin, and that doesn’t bother me as much as the principle of someone doing something avoidably stupid. Back with my rope ladder, then.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this? It's this cache.

 

Its a matter of conscience if you should have set this

 

But in any task set for another individual you should take time to do some form of risk assessment. Very few individuals even if they do read the cache page will interpret it the same. In the very exponentional growth of caches do we consider them as closely these days or are we just chasing numbers.

 

Other than the photo there seems no advice on choice of suitable equipment would the average person know or be able to avail them selves of it or how to use it correctly.

 

Do you own the structure or have implicit permission for the placing!!

 

Would you feel any guilt if someone for whatever reason injured or killed themselves, and would the owner of the structure face any liability action which in turn could bring geocaching into disrepute!!

 

The whole issue revolves around your own conscience and outlook.

You have entirely missed the point of the post. My saying “Anyone think I should/shouldn’t have done this?” was referring entirely to the fact that I originally intended, after this fiasco, to make the cache unavailable to non-premium cachers, not whether I should have set the thing in the first place.

 

The risk assessment is made by the finder, that’s what caching is about. You decide whether to go for a cache or not. I can’t give all the information you need – no-one can. There have been many posts about liability issues in caching and this is not the place to start another one. It's been done to death.

 

The photos are for amusement as well as showing that it is not straightforward and I care not if people can’t get to the cache; I think they shouldn’t try stupid things, though. I rely on people’s innate sense of self-confidence about whether or not they can do this, not showing off in front ot the kids.

 

So stop with the double !!’s too and get off your high horse about it.

 

OK the issue is should you make a cache Members Only. No reason why you shouldn't but would it change much.

 

If that is the major issue why not just keep it to that point in a covert way without drawing attention to this particular cache, where indeed all points remain valid.

 

Yes as a cache seeker I would do a risk assessment and would not attempt this particular cache, but I also still take the view that every cache setter has an equal responsibility of risk assessment too.

 

I did not even by the use of special characters cast a vote either way whether you should have set the cache or not. Also said was that for every dialog there is a Risk and Likelihood that things will be interpreted differently.

 

Any forum topic is likely to strike off at a tangent and that must likewise be assessed when raising the OP.

 

Matter closed please resume to OP theme.

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

 

Yes as a cache seeker I would do a risk assessment and would not attempt this particular cache, but I also still take the view that every cache setter has an equal responsibility of risk assessment too.

 

 

Im sorry but please dont try to dictate your own personal policies onto others. If you choose to do personal risk assessments on your own caches then that is up to you.

 

There is nothing in the rules that states cache setters have to make risk assesments, that is your personal idea. I personally believe that if caches had to meet risk criteria then it would make this a very dull and boring sport both to set caches and to find them. It would end up caches being placed on level ground, cleared of all trip hazards, clearly marked with warning signs, and just to be on the safe side a disclaimer on the lid.

 

Dont get me wrong I am not having a go at you or trying to tell you not to do your own risk assesments if thats what makes you happy but dont judge everyone else for not doing it. As with any sport the onus of risk assesment is on the person taking part. If at any stage you believe that you are doing something that is beyond your abillity then you stop. Just like you do for everything else in life from crossing the road to choosing a holiday.

 

I respect your decision to assess the risks in placing your own caches but if you are looking at any other caches or going out caching yourself then you should assess the risk yourself because to be quite honest, the amount of people who will actually be bothered to do a full risk assessment when setting a cache is very small indeed.

 

If this post offends anyone please feel free to let me know and I will happily remove it. As I said it is not meant to offend anyone.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Vodor

[+kewfriend]

Accidents happen. Think positively. The fella posted a log and admitted the disaster. Now a far worse scenario would have been that he gone done his f*ck *p and felt such a prat that he didnt tell anyone anyway. Then you'd have nothing and no clu as to what had happened.

 

I'd thank the fella for his interest. Suggest to him that he might like to offer another geocoin to the cache and direct him to where he can get a caving ladder, so that he can pop it into the cache.

 

We've all done stupid things on caches - mine are legendary. So be positive and encourage him to cache within the expected capabilities of a reasonably savvy cacher.

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

Accidents happen. Think positively. The fella posted a log and admitted the disaster. Now a far worse scenario would have been that he gone done his f*ck *p and felt such a prat that he didnt tell anyone anyway. Then you'd have nothing and no clu as to what had happened.

 

I'd thank the fella for his interest. Suggest to him that he might like to offer another geocoin to the cache and direct him to where he can get a caving ladder, so that he can pop it into the cache.

 

We've all done stupid things on caches - mine are legendary. So be positive and encourage him to cache within the expected capabilities of a reasonably savvy cacher.

 

Maybe we need to bring back the idea of caching buddies for new cachers. I was lucky enough to meet up with some people who gave me a fair bit of advice that was very handy as I was starting out.

[+Sensei TSKC]

Risk assessment sounds so formal. I suggest that EVERYONE does a risk assessment for every activity they undergo. The fact is they either do not class it as such or indeed call it one

 

i.e. You go to do a cache and you see it's on the otherside of the ditch so you jump it, retrieve, sign the log, put it back and go on to the next.

 

A dynamic risk assement was made during this process and the "cacher" decided to continue. There were no signs, level ground etc.

 

It's an everyday thing. We make these assessments all the time, every day of the week, 24/7/365. It's life.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Even as someone who is really very unlikely to be logging this cache, (inthis life anyway) I enjoyed reading the cache page and am delighted that the game is broad enough to entertain / amuse / tantalise / torture people from all different levels of fitness, ability and chutzpah.

 

Just as I wish for accessible caches to be dotted about all over the place (preferably in places I am visiting) , I am sure there are those who love this sort of challenge and would set out specifically to log this cache.

 

It is about knowing your own limits, assessing the risk and making a decision ... it's a shame when the old "nanny state" ethos is over done, the cache page does give plenty of warning that it isn't for the faint hearted and / or not so nimble.

 

I do wonder though Jerryo if it might be prudent to attach the cache with some sort of fishing line or something, and also attach the log book inside too.

[+FollowMeChaps]

........Just as I wish for accessible caches to be dotted about all over the place (preferably in places I am visiting) , I am sure there are those who love this sort of challenge and would set out specifically to log this cache.

 

It is about knowing your own limits, assessing the risk and making a decision ... it's a shame when the old "nanny state" ethos is over done, the cache page does give plenty of warning that it isn't for the faint hearted and / or not so nimble.........

 

 

Here, here! I 100% agree. On a personal level I try to do exactly this, either make my caches disabled access or more challenging. We are now working on one that hopefully ticks both boxes.

 

IMHO if your cache is potentially dangerous you are completely correct to make it members only. It won't stop the inexperienced, who may become premium members, but it lessens the chances of someone just finding it by accident and doing it, in other words you are taking every 'reasonable precaution' to reduce the risk and so protect yourself and the noble art of geocaching. I have done exactly the same to my 'more risky' cache (ok. this link is blatant advertising but it reinforces the point).

 

Out of interest I've just posted the coordinates for the cache in question into Google Earth. Having done this I could easily find the cache without a GPS. You can therefore see that without making it premium only then any idiot of any age could stumble over the listing whilst surfing the wed (it happens) and go try it out, not a good idea

[+scanker]

I think the original question's already been answered.

 

With regard to the cache in general, if it looks in reach and possible, someone will try and get it, no matter what the cache instructions say.

 

Everyone carries out risk assessments every day without even thinking about it, they just don't call them risk assessments. You carry out a risk assessment before crossing the road.

 

As the OP stated, he did consider that the cache may end up in the river, whether he calls it a risk assessment or not. It seems there was a good chance of this happening and it did. If the cache is under a bridge over a river, there's a reasonable chance it'll end up in the river purely because of its location, regardless of the specialist equipment a cacher uses.

 

That said, I think it's fair to be annoyed. I would be. As has been stated, I suppose you can say at least the finder owned up to it. I'd have liked to see him go further and actually say sorry as the log is sort of an apology but not quite. Hard to say, but I reckon if it was me I'd email, offer a new coin and probably offer to help fix the cache if I could.

 

I don't think subscriber only will change much.

[+Team Sieni]

Just re read this thread. A few things cross my mind.

 

Carrying out a "risk assessment" (formally or informally) before setting a cache seems so obvious to me as to be a complete no-brainer. Of course you should consider whether someone could be injured while doing your cache. You may carry on and set the cache anyway, but to just set it blindly would be idiocy. I think we can see from his warnings on the cache that Jerryo did carry out such an assessment before setting this one, because of the warnings he set on the cache page. It's the fact that the warnings were ignored that has irked him.

 

The story that "some idiot busy body at one of the London councils had ordered all the Oak trees to be chopped down along a lovely tree lined street just in case a child decided to climb the tree and fell out and hurt themselves" sounds to me like a made-up urban myth. I've read about cases of mature trees being felled, because someone sues the council over of root damage to their properties, but that's hardly the same. (Anyway, surely they'd be plane trees not oaks ?)

 

Back to the thread ...

 

Do I detect a hint - just the merest whiff - of numbers snobbery in this thread? The fact that the cacher only had two finds is mentioned rather prominently. More prominently even than the fact that they did something daft. Does clocking up a load of geocache finds make you more or less likely to behave in a foolhardy manner? Indeed - on the subject of "members only" - does shelling out an annual fee for the privilege of extra tupperware finding software features make you more or less likely to behave in a rational manner? I suggest that, in order to exclude the dangerously unhinged, you should set it to "premium members excluded" status.

 

Giardiasis? Friend of mine had that - he picked it up in deepest Asia somewhere. I didn't know you could get it in Blighty too. I dunno ticks ... spider bites ... giardiasis ... bridges off which I might plummet head first into disease ridden mud. I'm staying at home! It's waaaaaaaaaay too risky out there.

 

Right I'm off. Happy caching everyone ...

 

... and hey ...

 

... let's be careful out there.

[Lactodorum]

Although this thread has gone way off topic from the original post it seems to be developing into another equally valid discussion so I'm happy to leave it be.

 

Everyone carries out risk assessments every day without even thinking about it, they just don't call them risk assessments.

That's very true, they call it "Common Sense" When reviewing the more "challenging" caches such as the one that kicked all this off we HAVE to assume at least a modicum of this increasingly rare asset on the part of the finder or we'd never publish anything.

[+Munkeh]

 

The story that "some idiot busy body at one of the London councils had ordered all the Oak trees to be chopped down along a lovely tree lined street just in case a child decided to climb the tree and fell out and hurt themselves" sounds to me like a made-up urban myth. I've read about cases of mature trees being felled, because someone sues the council over of root damage to their properties, but that's hardly the same. (Anyway, surely they'd be plane trees not oaks ?)

 

 

this is fact, South Tyneside council chopped a load of conker trees down along a road due to a risk assessment

[+perth pathfinders]

Back to the original question .......

 

Due to the difficulty and skill, not to mention nerve required for retrieving this cache, you have already made it unobtainable to quite a lot of cachers.

 

If you make it member only, all you are doing is reducing the numbers of cachers able to retrieve it even further?

 

Surely the object of the game is to have as many people visiting the cache as possible - especially after all your hard work finding a spot and skillfully hiding the container?

 

We want to welcome new members, not put them off, sure we have all made daft mistakes along the way!

 

We all set caches knowing it could get muggled, nibbled by mice, washed away by rain, just the same as we release our coins/TBs, knowing that it might be the last we ever hear of them.

 

As you have carefully pointed out the dangers on the cache page then common sense tells cachers if they are capable of attempting the cache or not, just as common sense tells you if it is safe to leave a coin in a cache dangling over water or not?

 

We all try to take care when retrieving caches, but sometimes accidents do happen, we can drop them, cross thread screw tops, forget to put the pencil back in, tabs break... etc. etc. try not to let one incident get you down.

 

Not all logs for any cache will be positive, everyone has their own idea of caches they like/dislike, don't be put off by one set-back! Keep up the good work!

 

pp.

[+housefamily]

i.e. You go to do a cache and you see it's on the otherside of the ditch so you jump it, retrieve, sign the log, put it back and go on to the next.

It's even easier if you've brought someone along to help you jump the ditch - especially if you've just walked the last 100m through stinging nettles and mud in shorts and trainers!!!

One of Lester's caches

 

Back on topic - it's a real shame that the geocoin was lost, but I'm glad you've decided not to make it a premium member cache. Without wanting to turn this into a PM thread, there are a lot of well-experienced non-pm cachers out there with hundreds of finds under their belt.

And, as has already been pointed out, I bet we've all done something a little bit silly when looking for a cache, it's just that we've got away with it! It's a shame that it happened to this guy on his 3rd cache, but maybe he'll treat the rest of them with a little more caution!

Edited October 13, 2007 by housefamily

[+jerryo]

Update: I’ve sorted it out and the cache is available again. To be fair on the guy, he did log his mistake and even managed to put what was left back together and hide it again. I must confess that some of the difficulty he had was extracting the log book; it’s all very well doing it from the comfort of a climbing harness but, under the circumstances, I can’t complain. Any more than I already have, that is.

 

Thanks for all the replies after I went to bed last night. Here’re some responses in no particular order.

 

<snip>Do I detect a hint - just the merest whiff - of numbers snobbery in this thread? The fact that the cacher only had two finds is mentioned rather prominently. More prominently even than the fact that they did something daft. Does clocking up a load of geocache finds make you more or less likely to behave in a foolhardy manner?

Absolutely not! You have to put your words in some order and it was either mention the cache page bit first or the fact that I thought he was out on his third cache and trying to impress people by getting a 5/5 with no thought about going for a ponder, first. I think I was going for insult first, though. Admittedly it's not far from where he lives but there are many other caches in the area too that are kid friendly. Finding more caches makes you realise that sometimes you need to be more careful. It's only by a little experience that you realise not to drop the really heavy stone back on the box to hide it “better”; not to push the micro too far into the tree roots; not to shout “here it is!” in front of a crowd of muggles etc. Perhaps not, but you see where I’m coming from. I guess it’s a respect thing too; when I started caching, although it didn’t take me long to realise, I didn’t really appreciate how much effort went into setting caches up. This particular one has taken 5 dips in the river at all times of the year and, latterly, 80 quid for a caving ladder and safety bits and four – soon to be 5 – dangles over the edge. Not that I don’t like it!

 

<snippy>If that is the major issue why not just keep it to that point in a covert way without drawing attention to this particular cache, where indeed all points remain valid.

 

Yes as a cache seeker I would do a risk assessment and would not attempt this particular cache, but I also still take the view that every cache setter has an equal responsibility of risk assessment too.

 

I did not even by the use of special characters cast a vote either way whether you should have set the cache or not. <end of snippy>

 

The reason I mentioned the specific cache was I thought people would want to know; I have been asked before which cache I was referring to. I thought it was relevant.

 

I did a risk assessment. As mentioned by someone else here. I was very careful about it although what I did was to see how safe I thought it was rather than getting tied up in management-speak ;-)

 

I edited my reply, too late as it turns out. I apologise for being snappy but I think it’s clear why I was annoyed about the finder’s actions.

 

Accidents happen. Think positively. The fella posted a log and admitted the disaster. <snip>I'd thank the fella for his interest. Suggest to him that he might like to offer another geocoin to the cache and direct him to where he can get a caving ladder, so that he can pop it into the cache.

At least he did say what had happened, I suppose. No argument there!

 

I do wonder though Jerryo if it might be prudent to attach the cache with some sort of fishing line or something, and also attach the log book inside too.

It’s all attached with string (strong nylon) and the only reason the log book isn’t anchored inside the container is that I thought people might jam the string in the lid and not be able to get it closed. I tried.

 

All’s well that ends well and I now know how deep the water is as I tried it today. It’s about 3 feet deep and another two feet of mud. Yeeeuch!

[+jerryo]

If anyone’s interested, I emailed the guy concerned about this matter (politely ) and thanked him for telling me what had happened. On the grounds that the log book was a bit difficult to retrieve (particularly if hanging upside down), I suggested, rather kindly I thought, that he might like to log the cache after all . He had touched the log book and was very close. It would also prevent him from trying the same stunt again . What do I get? Nada! Nix, not even a thank you – and still no “sorry about the coin”. Pah! So I emailed him again and told him I’d changed my mind and now a condition of logging it is a photo of the equipment in situ. Still nowt, and he logs in regularly. However, this means, irritatingly, that I’ve had to ask Deceangi to change the cache type to “unknown”. Now people’ll think it’s one of those irritating puzzles that I’m just about to start another thread about.

[+careygang]

I've read all this with interest, being a H&S officer at work to boot.

 

Seems to me that making it Premium Members Only will have no consequence, because the only qualification for that status is to pay a sum of money. It has no reflection on the ability, common sense, training, or IQ of the individual concerned. You could even argue about what happens if a non English reading premium member goes for it???

 

I think you have done all the right things in the way this is now listed.

 

What you could do to stop things being dropped in the river is make it so that it has to be recovered to dry land before opening, or when they open it they find a note that directs them to dry land that is very nearby for a second stage of the cache.

Thus you would have all the difficulty of the challenge but also safeguard the final Cache contents.

[+keehotee]

What you could do to stop things being dropped in the river is make it so that it has to be recovered to dry land before opening, or when they open it they find a note that directs them to dry land that is very nearby for a second stage of the cache.

I was thinking on the same lines - fix a laminated note that could only be read from under the bridge with the co-ords for the final close by.

The difficulty remains the same, but the final cache and it's contents remain safe.......

[+jerryo]

Thanks to the you both for those ideas. Good ones and I'll have contemplate.

[+Fifth Barrowcliffe]

 

I now know how deep the water is as I tried it today. It’s about 3 feet deep and another two feet of mud. Yeeeuch!

 

 

So we are talking about 5 foot to break the surface of the water, from the photographs the bridge is at least 3 ft above the water surface - OK waders are out - Looks like I will have to figure another way!

Edited October 19, 2007 by Fifth Barrowcliffe

[+Cache U Nutter]

As someone who pleads guilty to setting some similar caches I thought that I should get my pennies worth!

The cache should be available to everyone, with no restrictions.

As with rock climbing there is a general expectation attached to each and every climb one attempts. i.e there is a degree of danger and the attempt is likely to involve a certain amount of strenuous effort or agility.

The degree of risk [of killing/ injuring oneself] is indicated by a severity [extreme] grade and the actual technical difficulty is indicated by a difficulty grade.

Given that these type of caches are so new, no grading system is in place [although of course they are all 5/5]

On a few of my similar caches I have introduced my own grading system to indicate that there is indeed varying difficulty.

Some of my caches are in fact very dangerous as there is a risk of stonefall [The Beast666] where indeed tpakui got walloped in his attempt.

others are not so dangerous but much more difficult to reach [a bridge too far]

Would suggest all caches of this genre have a grading system included , Jerry perhaps you would think about this?

[+jerryo]

So we are talking about 5 foot to break the surface of the water, from the photographs the bridge is at least 3 ft above the water surface - OK waders are out - Looks like I will have to figure another way!

It's actually about 3-4 metres to the water surface so stilts might do it

[+jerryo]

<snip>Would suggest all caches of this genre have a grading system included , Jerry perhaps you would think about this?

Absolutely. The thing with grading a cache like this as 5/5, or my other one that’s the same grade, is there really is no indication of how difficult it actually is. The other one is a doddle if you have the right equipment and is only a serious-bordering-on-insane climb if you don’t. On the latter, there are now some spoiler photos and almost anyone can do it. As far as the cache in the OP is concerned, there need be no danger and the technical difficulty doesn’t compare with actually having to use “proper” climbing skills, as it were. It’s equipment you need and a bit of common sense. I have done more arduous caches with a lower grading and they can take all day. This one, with care, will take about half an hour. I don’t want deliberately to exclude anyone from any caches and I’m open to being asked to come along and help people get it but I fear that it could get silly. Ceratinly if it’s the last cache in the area for someone who wants to clear their front page then I’m up for it.

[markandlynn]

As someone who pleads guilty to setting some similar caches I thought that I should get my pennies worth!

The cache should be available to everyone, with no restrictions.

As with rock climbing there is a general expectation attached to each and every climb one attempts. i.e there is a degree of danger and the attempt is likely to involve a certain amount of strenuous effort or agility.

The degree of risk [of killing/ injuring oneself] is indicated by a severity [extreme] grade and the actual technical difficulty is indicated by a difficulty grade.

Given that these type of caches are so new, no grading system is in place [although of course they are all 5/5]

On a few of my similar caches I have introduced my own grading system to indicate that there is indeed varying difficulty.

Some of my caches are in fact very dangerous as there is a risk of stonefall [The Beast666] where indeed tpakui got walloped in his attempt.

others are not so dangerous but much more difficult to reach [a bridge too far]

Would suggest all caches of this genre have a grading system included , Jerry perhaps you would think about this?

Got one of these ourselves as well perhaps the subject of another thread if something like a consensus could be reached i'd certainly add some pre generated image or HTML to that particular cache page oh and to the one we are planning