Lamp Post Caches, Are They Safe?

[+Johnnygeo]

Lamp Post Caches, are they safe?

 

At the end of this post I want you to answer the question... Please take a read...

 

I "Googled" Lamp Post Caches on my computer and came up with a lot of hits on the subject. I read how they're lame because they're so boring after finding 10 of them in a row. I read that they're on private property and that a cacher needs permission before they hide a cache in the lamp post. I read that a lamp post cache caused a bomb threat.

 

All of these concerns are valid but from a safety perspective I think we're missing the boat. There needs to be more thought on how a lamp posts electrical equipment fails. It's happening way too much to say.. Ahhh, that never happens...

 

Remember, everytime you lift a lamp post cover to find a cache, you're trusting that the lampost wiring has not failed from old age or has not been vandelized before you got there.

 

As I've said in the past, a city, town, etc can have the best electrical maintenance program in the world, and still, the power equipment can fail, like anything else.

 

For a handful of you that may be asking yourself, "I haven't heard of anyone getting killed by geocaching by a lampost", you're right, and I hope that knowbody ever does. BUT people doing other hobbies, walking their dog, playing around lamposts and other types of electrical equipment are getting killed.

 

Here's some proof on what's going on "out there". (please click on the link for the full story)

 

(1)... The electrified spots were discovered during emergency inspections prompted by Ms. Lane's death...Manhattan had 53 electrified manholes and service-box covers, and 30 charged lampposts. The Bronx had 6 electrified manhole and service-box covers and 25 charged lampposts.

Link

 

(2) The downtown electrocution of a 9-year-old boy was caused by the failure of the insulation in a 480-volt wire in the base of a light post, according to a report from investigators.

Link

 

(3)An ungrounded light pole is being eyed as the possible cause of death of a 9-year-old girl at a self-serve carwash Monday evening, a city official said Wednesday.

(YOU NEED TO SCROLL DOWN A BIT TO FIND THE STORY) Link

 

These are just a small hand full of incidents that are occuring out there.

 

Lamp posts are meant to be safe because they're out in the general public but as you have just read, that's not always the case. Lamp posts are meant to give light to an area and to be left alone... not to be played on or in.

Also, if we teach our children it's okay to lift up covers to this equipment, will they know what not to enter when they're alone? Probably NOT. Link

 

Let's not have our kids get-used-to playing around this equipment.

 

There are so many other places we can hide and find geocaches, let's stay away from electrical equipment.

 

So, are LPC's safe?

 

Thank you,

 

Johnnygeo

 

For more info, please visit my blog @ www.johnnygeo-blog.blogspot.com Link

[Mushtang]

Lamp Post Caches, are they safe?

They're not 100% safe. As far as a lot of the hides on this site, I'd say they're more safe than some of the 5 star terrain caches, they're more safe than the 2 day camping trip caches, they're more safe than the cache hidden 30' up a tree, etc.

 

With all the cachers lifting up lamp post skirts and none getting hurt, I'd even say they're more safe than driving your car TO the parking lot.

 

Nothing in life is 100% safe, and the cacher knows what he's doing carries some risk.

[+Thrak]

Cars aren't safe. People choke on hamburgers. Get over it.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Lamp post cache

[Dinoprophet]

Those three stories are anywhere from 3-5 years old. I can find at least three stories about dead hikers in the woods just within the last three months. A handful of lamp post related deaths is no reason to avoid them.

[+StarBrand]

While I doubt any Geocacher has ever suffered an electrical injury that required treatment from an LPC, I don't consider them all too safe either. But lots of other caches elsewhere probably create equal amounts of manageable danger.

 

I've my own reasons for avoiding them - danger is at least a factor in that decision.

[+uxorious]

So, are LPC's safe?

 

Safe enough.

 

These are just a small hand full of incidents that are occuring out there.

 

Sounds like people are dropping like flies in our parking lots. I can't tell you how many times I've casually touched lamp posts over the years. Long before I ever heard of Geocaching. I guess I'm just lucky to be alive.

[+sbell111]

[+DudleyGrunt]

Mushtang,

 

While you are correct that nothing is 100% safe, there are a couple of problems with your argument.

 

1) LPC's tend to rated about a 1 terrain, which doesn't reflect the inherent dangers of the location. Most of the examples you cite would be given a higher terrain rating to correspond to their risk factor. In those cases, the seekers probably also understand the risk going in.

 

2) I'm willing to bet that 99.99% of LPC's don't have proper permissions, which the property manager would not be likely to grant given the potential problems.

 

3) Unless you are going to give up the car, the risks of driving are going to be a part of most caches and other activities you undertake so is not particularly relevent here.

 

Basically, those placing caches have many other options when hiding a cache and should look for better spots.

 

DudleyGrunt

[+sbell111]

So, are LPC's safe?

Safe enough.

These are just a small hand full of incidents that are occuring out there.

Sounds like people are dropping like flies in our parking lots. I can't tell you how many times I've casually touched lamp posts over the years. Long before I ever heard of Geocaching. I guess I'm just lucky to be alive.

I agree.

 

While there is a very, very slight chance that the wiring will be damaged in such a way that causes the pole to be 'hot', I believe that the risk is so slim as to not be an issue. Further, it would be an issue for anyone utilizing that parking lot, not just for geocachers. Finally, as a cache seeker, I believe that the risk is reduced almost to the nonexistent. After all, if the wiring was bad, the cache never would have been listed because the cache owner would be dead.

[+sbell111]

Safety is a red herring.

 

The chance of being killed by a light pole is very, very slim. I bet that if you did nothing all day every day but go out and touch light poles that you would likely never find a bad one. The odds are probably about the same that you would be struck by lightning looking for a cache.

 

Perhaps the terrain rating for all caches should be bumped up because of the danger of lightning strikes.

Edited January 22, 2008 by sbell111

[+tokencollector]

While I'm not particularly concerned about the skirtlifter type of lamp post caches, the one pictured in Johnny Vegas's post above does concern me. Why? Assuming that the cover is normally closed, finding the cache requires opening the access cover on live electrical equipment. It's hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like there is a bit of exposed copper wire extending below a wirenut directly behind the cache.

[+egami]

Safety is a red herring.

 

Safety is a straw man...we all know the real issue is permission!

 

Sorry, couldn't resist...

[Mushtang]

Mushtang,

 

While you are correct that nothing is 100% safe, there are a couple of problems with your argument.

 

1) LPC's tend to rated about a 1 terrain, which doesn't reflect the inherent dangers of the location. Most of the examples you cite would be given a higher terrain rating to correspond to their risk factor. In those cases, the seekers probably also understand the risk going in.

My post was not meant to suggest that seekers wouldn't be expecting more risk, but that risky caches exist on the site and it's okay. A 1 star terrain cache is no guarantee that the cache is risk free.

 

2) I'm willing to bet that 99.99% of LPC's don't have proper permissions, which the property manager would not be likely to grant given the potential problems.

Permission is a completely different topic, and there are lots and lots of permissions threads. Do a search for "Frisbee" and you'll find several.

 

3) Unless you are going to give up the car, the risks of driving are going to be a part of most caches and other activities you undertake so is not particularly relevent here.

Sure it is. The danger of an LPC is low, but not zero, and the OP suggests that the level of danger should be high enough to make us want to avoid them (at least that's what I took from the post). We can't avoid all risks, and we accept some (such as driving, eating hamburgers, etc) in order to have fun. Many of us don't think LPCs are nearly as dangerous as driving to the parking lot.

 

Basically, those placing caches have many other options when hiding a cache and should look for better spots.

Basically, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. Who decides what "better" is? There's always a "better" spot in someone's opinion. Should we all hide caches in ways that suit everyone, or maybe in ways that suit most people? What if it was shown that most non-cachers think this whole thing is a waste of time and we all should do "better" things with our time... would you give up caching for them?

[Mushtang]

Safety is a red herring.

 

Safety is a straw man...we all know the real issue is permission!

 

Sorry, couldn't resist...

You just HAD to fling that one in here like a hot Frisbee didn't you?

[+Renegade Knight]

Mushtang,

 

While you are correct that nothing is 100% safe, there are a couple of problems with your argument.

 

1) LPC's tend to rated about a 1 terrain, which doesn't reflect the inherent dangers of the location. Most of the examples you cite would be given a higher terrain rating to correspond to their risk factor. In those cases, the seekers probably also understand the risk going in.

 

2) I'm willing to bet that 99.99% of LPC's don't have proper permissions, which the property manager would not be likely to grant given the potential problems.

 

3) Unless you are going to give up the car, the risks of driving are going to be a part of most caches and other activities you undertake so is not particularly relevent here.

 

Basically, those placing caches have many other options when hiding a cache and should look for better spots.

 

DudleyGrunt

 

Let me tackle the problems with your argument.

1) 1 Terrain is accurate most times. The location's inerent danger is so minescule that they allow people to put light poles up in public areas. In other words it's not a sigificant danger. There is more advertising about being hit by lightning.

2) A non issue in that the cache owner has claimed adequate permission and unless proven othewise their word on this is good.

3) Safety is often used as a smoke screen. You noted that about cars, you should also note it about lamp posts.

[Mushtang]

While I'm not particularly concerned about the skirtlifter type of lamp post caches, the one pictured in Johnny Vegas's post above does concern me. Why? Assuming that the cover is normally closed, finding the cache requires opening the access cover on live electrical equipment. It's hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like there is a bit of exposed copper wire extending below a wirenut directly behind the cache.

I agree. Inside the access cover is a stupid place to put a cache, and a stupid place to try and look for one. Nobody will ever make a stupid proof anything. I wouldn't reach in there for that one. The risk is too high. I'll still lift up lamp post skirts to look for them.

 

I also wouldn't try and ride my motorcycle in a wheelie at 80mph the whole way to a cache. The risk is too high. I'll still ride it safely, or drive my Jeep safely, to caches.

 

I also wouldn't try and get to a cache on the side of a cliff without the proper climbing equipment. The risk is too high. I'd still enjoy going rappelling with ropes and harnesses and find them.

 

Just because the averageLPC isn't too dangerous to find doesn't mean all LPCs are perfectly safe always no matter what.

[+DudleyGrunt]

 

My post was not meant to suggest that seekers wouldn't be expecting more risk, but that risky caches exist on the site and it's okay. A 1 star terrain cache is no guarantee that the cache is risk free.

 

Permission is a completely different topic, and there are lots and lots of permissions threads. Do a search for "Frisbee" and you'll find several.

 

Sure it is. The danger of an LPC is low, but not zero, and the OP suggests that the level of danger should be high enough to make us want to avoid them (at least that's what I took from the post). We can't avoid all risks, and we accept some (such as driving, eating hamburgers, etc) in order to have fun. Many of us don't think LPCs are nearly as dangerous as driving to the parking lot.

 

Basically, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. Who decides what "better" is? There's always a "better" spot in someone's opinion. Should we all hide caches in ways that suit everyone, or maybe in ways that suit most people? What if it was shown that most non-cachers think this whole thing is a waste of time and we all should do "better" things with our time... would you give up caching for them?

 

1) True, terrain is not directly related to risk, but I think there is generally some correlation.

 

2) While permission and risk are two different issues, I think that it is relevant to mention that the issue of risk is largely moot if permission has not been obtained.

 

3) see 2

 

4) Obviously, "better" is in the eye of the beholder and my statement should only be taken as a statement of my opinion.

[+JohnnyVegas]

While I'm not particularly concerned about the skirtlifter type of lamp post caches, the one pictured in Johnny Vegas's post above does concern me. Why? Assuming that the cover is normally closed, finding the cache requires opening the access cover on live electrical equipment. It's hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like there is a bit of exposed copper wire extending below a wirenut directly behind the cache.

I agree. Inside the access cover is a stupid place to put a cache, and a stupid place to try and look for one. Nobody will ever make a stupid proof anything. I wouldn't reach in there for that one. The risk is too high. I'll still lift up lamp post skirts to look for them.

 

I also wouldn't try and ride my motorcycle in a wheelie at 80mph the whole way to a cache. The risk is too high. I'll still ride it safely, or drive my Jeep safely, to caches.

 

I also wouldn't try and get to a cache on the side of a cliff without the proper climbing equipment. The risk is too high. I'd still enjoy going rappelling with ropes and harnesses and find them.

 

Just because the averageLPC isn't too dangerous to find doesn't mean all LPCs are perfectly safe always no matter what.

For the record, when I saw the cache in the photo the plate was already unsrewed

some earlier finder left it that way is my guess.

[+Renegade Knight]

While I'm not particularly concerned about the skirtlifter type of lamp post caches, the one pictured in Johnny Vegas's post above does concern me. Why? Assuming that the cover is normally closed, finding the cache requires opening the access cover on live electrical equipment. It's hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like there is a bit of exposed copper wire extending below a wirenut directly behind the cache.

I agree. Inside the access cover is a stupid place to put a cache, and a stupid place to try and look for one. Nobody will ever make a stupid proof anything. I wouldn't reach in there for that one. ...

 

Agreed.

 

It comes down to this. If a Frisbee kills a kid due to a freak and unlikely accident do we ban all Frisbee’s? Or understand that things happen that just do not rise to the level of an actual public hazard.

[+Team Cotati]

They seem relatively safe. They are however significantly stupid.

[+ventura_kids]

That's why I hide caches on transformers instead......

 

 

(waiting for flames)

 

If you are geocaching in daylight, the power should be off on the lampost....minimizing the risk exponentially.

[+sbell111]

That's why I hide caches on transformers instead......

 

 

(waiting for flames)

 

If you are geocaching in daylight, the power should be off on the lampost....minimizing the risk exponentially.

Moving caches are not allowed.

 

Edited January 22, 2008 by sbell111

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

 

If you are geocaching in daylight, the power should be off on the lampost....minimizing the risk exponentially.

 

Unless it has a photovoltaic cell to turn it on automatically at Dusk in which case it is never "off".

[+JohnnyVegas]

That's why I hide caches on transformers instead......

 

 

(waiting for flames)

 

If you are geocaching in daylight, the power should be off on the lampost....minimizing the risk exponentially.

Not quite, some lamp post have sensors on top of them that turn on the lamp when it gets dark. The switch is at the top of the pole, those wires will be hot.

Edited January 22, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[+sbell111]

That's why I hide caches on transformers instead......

 

 

(waiting for flames)

 

If you are geocaching in daylight, the power should be off on the lampost....minimizing the risk exponentially.

Not quite, some lamp post have sensors on top of them that turn on the lamp when it gets dark. The switch is at the top of the pole, those wires will be hot.

Why do you have Capt. Blackbeard on ignore?

[4wheelin_fool]

Lamp post cache

 

That picture is not a typical LPC which is hidden under the bolt cover, and away from any wiring.

 

It the cache was in with the wiring, I'd say it was a very bad spot though..

Edited January 22, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Team Crime Scene]

Lamp post cache

 

That picture is not a typical LPC which is hidden under the bolt cover and not near any wiring.

 

It the cache was in with the wiring, I'd say it was a very bad spot though..

 

A great example of a Cache in very poor taste. My standards aren't that high I'd still log it .

[+sbell111]

Lamp post cache

That picture is not a typical LPC which is hidden under the bolt cover and not near any wiring.

 

It the cache was in with the wiring, I'd say it was a very bad spot though..

A great example of a Cache in very poor taste. My standards aren't that high I'd still log it .

I hate that cache, but not because of any safety issue.

[+Team Crime Scene]

Hey, I know let's make a cache where the wire nut is the container. Sit back and watch the show......

 

Crimeny.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

1) Very little in life is "safe"

and

B ) Groundspeak does not consider safety in listing caches.

 

You're on your own out there - if you don't like the risk don't take it!

Edited January 22, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+ke5gdb]

As long as I'm not FTF, everything's going to be OK.

 

=)

Edited January 22, 2008 by ke5gdb

[+tozainamboku]

I am much more worried about get run over by a shopping cart. I also worry about pinching my finger in the skirt and getting a infection. I agree - lamp post caches are not safe.

Edited January 22, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+Bad_CRC]

I don't understand how the existence of other dangerous things makes a potentially dangerous thing any less dangerous said captain dangerous on his dangerous dirtbike.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Bad_CRC

[Mushtang]

I just love some people's idea of logic.

 

it's much less safe to shoot yourself in the head than it is to blindfold yourself and wander drunk down the middle of the turnpike, therefore, it's perfectly fine to blindfold yourself and wander drunk down the middle of the turnpike.

 

 

 

brilliant minds.

Brilliant straw man. Nobody in any post said that just because one thing is less dangerous than another, it's perfectly fine to do.

 

There is a certain amount of risk in everything we do. It's impossible to isolate yourself from any and all dangers. At some level you have a line that you'd accept the risk (driving a car, eating a steak, etc) and some things you won't do ever (grab a live power line, shoot yourself in the head, walk blindfolded and drunk down a turnpike, etc.). That line is different for everyone.

[+Bad_CRC]

 

Brilliant straw man.

 

I removed it. No need to add more angst. I apologize.

[+Renegade Knight]

I just love some people's idea of logic.

 

it's much less safe to shoot yourself in the head than it is to blindfold yourself and wander drunk down the middle of the turnpike, therefore, it's perfectly fine to blindfold yourself and wander drunk down the middle of the turnpike.

 

 

 

brilliant minds.

 

Ditto:

 

I like the other logic. "There is a small chance that something could happen, so best not to tempt fate and risk it." Of course by small they mean the odds are actually higher that you will be high by rogue lightning from the blue clear sky, on the way to that cache than something will happen at the cache itself because of it's location on a light post.

 

There is point at which it's too trivial to worry about if you want to enjoy life.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I just love some people's idea of logic.

 

it's much less safe to shoot yourself in the head than it is to blindfold yourself and wander drunk down the middle of the turnpike, therefore, it's perfectly fine to blindfold yourself and wander drunk down the middle of the turnpike.

 

 

 

brilliant minds.

Brilliant straw man. Nobody in any post said that just because one thing is less dangerous than another, it's perfectly fine to do.

 

There is a certain amount of risk in everything we do. It's impossible to isolate yourself from any and all dangers. At some level you have a line that you'd accept the risk (driving a car, eating a steak, etc) and some things you won't do ever (grab a live power line, shoot yourself in the head, walk blindfolded and drunk down a turnpike, etc.). That line is different for everyone.

 

Thank you. I'm still baffled as to what brought his statement about.

[+Confucius' Cat]

LPCs, as normally practised, are as safe as the lamppost itself.

 

The possibility of a "hot" lamppost exists because the ground wire could fail and a hot wire could touch the pole body. This requires two faults at the same time and is a very rare occurrence. It does however happen.

 

If the cache is placed UNDER THE SKIRT, and not INSIDE THE POLE OR HAND-HOLE, there is no additional danger in lifting the skirt to get the cache. If the pole is "hot" you will probably get shocked as soon as you touch the skirt. If it is not hot, lifting the skirt is not going to make it hot.

 

Opening the hand-hole and reaching inside the pole is JUST PLAIN STUPID. Placing a cache inside the hand-hole, where a seeker can conceivably come in contact with the wiring, is also STUPID, bordering on criminally negligent.

[+The Jester]

LPCs, as normally practised, are as safe as the lamppost itself.

 

The possibility of a "hot" lamppost exists because the ground wire could fail and a hot wire could touch the pole body. This requires two faults at the same time and is a very rare occurrence. It does however happen.

 

If the cache is placed UNDER THE SKIRT, and not INSIDE THE POLE OR HAND-HOLE, there is no additional danger in lifting the skirt to get the cache. If the pole is "hot" you will probably get shocked as soon as you touch the skirt. If it is not hot, lifting the skirt is not going to make it hot.

 

Opening the hand-hole and reaching inside the pole is JUST PLAIN STUPID. Placing a cache inside the hand-hole, where a seeker can conceivably come in contact with the wiring, is also STUPID, bordering on criminally negligent.

Around here a lot of the skirts are plastic, lowering the possible danger even farther as they don't conduct electricity.

[+geomann1]

One could die of boredom

[+Johnnygeo]

Lamp post cache

 

Love all your comments, I see that some of you have an understanding...

 

The picture above scares much more that any micro attached to a Lamp Post. (not saying that LPC's are a smart choice, by any means... )

The above picture is an example of one of the worst types of geocaches that a person could ever hide.

 

This is an accident waiting to happen.

 

If any of you ever come across a cache like the one above please contact the cache owner or a Geocache.com reviewer ASAP to report this imminent danger.

 

Some people just don't know that a large amount of the time, the wires in these posts are live, even in the day because a photo-cell is placed on the top of them that turns the light off and on.

The connections can be bare or covered. The caps that protect the energized lugs are not always on all the way leaving energized lugs/wires at the opening.

 

Again, please report this ASAP and contact your local power utlity company so they can put the cover on properly.

 

JV, thanks for sharing this photo.

[Clan Riffster]

So, are LPC's safe?

Absolutely not! Most LPC's are in close proximity to parking lots, which are oft filled with exhaust spewing, soccer mom filled SUV's. These exhaust fumes can lead to minor brochial distress, causing mild coughs in roughly 00.003% of the population. Also, the blacktop in most parking lots reflects UV radiation, increasing your chance of melanoma by 00.007%. Not to mention the fact that some lamp post covers have trace amounts of lead in the paint, and the rough edges can lead to blisters if you lift the cover more than 20,000 times a day. Absolutely unacceptable risks! Groundspeak aughta do something!

[+Johnnygeo]

Hahaha... good one...

 

Today's Blog Post...

My Webpage

Edited January 23, 2008 by Johnnygeo

[+Confucius' Cat]

Lamp post cache

This is an accident waiting to happen.

 

If any of you ever come across a cache like the one above please contact the cache owner or a Geocache.com reviewer ASAP to report this imminent danger.

I would probably post SBA on that particular hide if I came across it. But since I generally turn around and leave when my coords zero out at a lamppost base, I would probably never know.

 

The pictured cache is unsafe because one has to reach into the unprotected electrical wiring area, no matter how slightly, in order to get it. A slip could be fatal (assuming unseen wiring defects).

 

The cache pictured is definitely out of the norm though. To judge all or even most LPCs unsafe because a few might be like this one would be utter nonsense. Like saying all cars are unsafe because you once drove one with bad brakes.

[+tokencollector]

So, are LPC's safe?

Absolutely not! Most LPC's are in close proximity to parking lots, which are oft filled with exhaust spewing, soccer mom filled SUV's. These exhaust fumes can lead to minor brochial distress, causing mild coughs in roughly 00.003% of the population. Also, the blacktop in most parking lots reflects UV radiation, increasing your chance of melanoma by 00.007%. Not to mention the fact that some lamp post covers have trace amounts of lead in the paint, and the rough edges can lead to blisters if you lift the cover more than 20,000 times a day. Absolutely unacceptable risks! Groundspeak aughta do something!

 

Not to mention the wasps that occasionally like to build nests in skirts []. My son went for one and got a good fistful of nest. His reaction and the look on his face is etched in my memory. Fortunately, the nest was unoccupied. The bugs must have been scared off by a previous cachers who had done the same thing. When I looked at the logs after attempting the cache, they reported not getting stung.

Edited January 23, 2008 by tokencollector

[+Johnnygeo]

Lamp post cache

This is an accident waiting to happen.

 

If any of you ever come across a cache like the one above please contact the cache owner or a Geocache.com reviewer ASAP to report this imminent danger.

I would probably post SBA on that particular hide if I came across it. But since I generally turn around and leave when my coords zero out at a lamppost base, I would probably never know.

 

The pictured cache is unsafe because one has to reach into the unprotected electrical wiring area, no matter how slightly, in order to get it. A slip could be fatal (assuming unseen wiring defects).

 

The cache pictured is definitely out of the norm though. To judge all or even most LPCs unsafe because a few might be like this one would be utter nonsense. Like saying all cars are unsafe because you once drove one with bad brakes.

 

I hear you. You're very good at explaining things out and appreciate the way you defend your point... Very difficult for some.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Lamp post cache

This is an accident waiting to happen.

 

If any of you ever come across a cache like the one above please contact the cache owner or a Geocache.com reviewer ASAP to report this imminent danger.

I would probably post SBA on that particular hide if I came across it. But since I generally turn around and leave when my coords zero out at a lamppost base, I would probably never know.

 

The pictured cache is unsafe because one has to reach into the unprotected electrical wiring area, no matter how slightly, in order to get it. A slip could be fatal (assuming unseen wiring defects).

 

The cache pictured is definitely out of the norm though. To judge all or even most LPCs unsafe because a few might be like this one would be utter nonsense. Like saying all cars are unsafe because you once drove one with bad brakes.

Posting a SBA in a cache will give you nothing problems. Tell the cache owner, never works!

[+FunnyNose]

At least LP's are safer then where I'm going next week.

Watch out for Land Mines !!

 

[+The Jester]

At least LP's are safer then where I'm going next week.

Watch out for Land Mines !!

 

Yeah, but you have that metal detector...

 

 

Edit because I shouldn't type this late at night...

Edited January 23, 2008 by The Jester