If you can't do it, just walk away.

[+bri13]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits. I don't understand why they have to ruin it for others. Why not just walk away. Anyone had any problms like this? Any ideas what to do?

[+Sarge104]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits. I don't understand why they have to ruin it for others. Why not just walk away. Anyone had any problms like this? Any ideas what to do?

 

I will have to take a look at why they were archived before I say anything. I know that I've turned back before because of safety issues. It is part of the activity, it's no fun not coming home

[+BlueDeuce]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits. I don't understand why they have to ruin it for others. Why not just walk away. Anyone had any problms like this? Any ideas what to do?

 

Let me guess, the cache wasn't within gc.com guidelines.

[+MountainRacer]

Let me guess, the cache wasn't within gc.com guidelines.

Seconded. Some people consider it fun to spray-paint subway stations and beat up old people; most people consider this risky, harmful, and generally detrimental. The rules are in place for a reason.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits.

 

I disagree. Most people can make a reasonable determination regarding something that is well beyond their limits of safety but I suspect that few can put a really accurate assessment as to what their limits are in reality. I've read too many incidents that occur about this time of the year of people going out in kayaks or canoes when the air temperatures have warmed but the water is still in the 40's and they've underestimated their skills in keeping their boat upright, and more importantly the consequences of capsizing in water that cold without being dressed for immersion. The frequency in which incidents like this happen tell me that there are a lot of people that significantly overestimate their limits, and the consequences can be fatal.

[+BlueDeuce]

Let me guess, the cache wasn't within gc.com guidelines.

Seconded. Some people consider it fun to spray-paint subway stations and beat up old people; most people consider this risky, harmful, and generally detrimental. The rules are in place for a reason.

 

I was thinking more about the caches under a major highway bridge guideline, but I'm sure that beating up old people isn't part of the geocacher's creed.

[+bri13]

GC1B9EM:My river view

GC1A5VJ:Insane!

 

These are 2of the caches that got archived.

[+BlueDeuce]

GC1B9EM:My river view

GC1A5VJ:Insane!

 

These are 2of the caches that got archived.

 

Yes, I had found the cache listings. Looks like one guy voluntarily archived his cache apparently from peer pressure but I still think the cache might not have met guidelines and has trespassing issues as well.

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

Even the cache owner stated:

 

IDOT would never approve the placement of a cache on or under any bridge due to liability issues, regardless of the size.

 

So maybe I'm missing the point on this one.

 

As for yours I have to assume that you were instructed to archive your cache. Yes, no?

Edited May 23, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+joranda]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits. I don't understand why they have to ruin it for others. Why not just walk away. Anyone had any problms like this? Any ideas what to do?

 

Let me guess, the cache wasn't within gc.com guidelines.

 

Yes it was within the guide lines. I was able to do both of the caches in question before it was archived. one of them was a bison tube that was along the Peoria river front way down by the river. It was a steep climb to it and you have the chance of falling into the river if you slipped.

Edited May 23, 2008 by joranda

[+BlueDeuce]

Yes it was within the guide lines. I was able to do both of the caches in question before it was archived. one of them was a bison tube that was along the Peoria river front way down by the river. It was a steep climb to it and you have the chance of falling into the river if you slipped.

 

So clue me in, people don't get their caches archived just by geopolice/geocrybabbies.

 

Shirley there's a reason not yet explained.

[+furfool]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits.

 

I disagree. Most people can make a reasonable determination regarding something that is well beyond their limits of safety but I suspect that few can put a really accurate assessment as to what their limits are in reality. I've read too many incidents that occur about this time of the year of people going out in kayaks or canoes when the air temperatures have warmed but the water is still in the 40's and they've underestimated their skills in keeping their boat upright, and more importantly the consequences of capsizing in water that cold without being dressed for immersion. The frequency in which incidents like this happen tell me that there are a lot of people that significantly overestimate their limits, and the consequences can be fatal.

Yes, I agree that many people overestimate their limits. If they do that, that's just too bad. It really gets annoying when people have to be protected from themselves. We have some caches in our area that one has to climb out over a river on tree limbs to get to. Do I like it? No. I am very dissapointed though. Why? Because I am unable to get to them. I am a big guy, but it is more of my fear of heights that keep me from going for them. What about island caches? In early winter there may be enough ice to support you near shore. You move out ten or twenty yards and break through. Sheer stupidity! If people don't use common sense, I hate to say it, but maybe they deserve what they get.

Remember that waiver that we all had to agree to when we opened or accounts? We all hunt caches at our own risk. Plain and simple.

[+joranda]

Yes it was within the guide lines. I was able to do both of the caches in question before it was archived. one of them was a bison tube that was along the Peoria river front way down by the river. It was a steep climb to it and you have the chance of falling into the river if you slipped.

 

So clue me in, people don't get their caches archived just by geopolice/geocrybabbies.

 

Shirley there's a reason not yet explained.

 

All I'll say is that it came down to peer pressure from local cachers who did not like the location.

[+joranda]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits.

 

I disagree. Most people can make a reasonable determination regarding something that is well beyond their limits of safety but I suspect that few can put a really accurate assessment as to what their limits are in reality. I've read too many incidents that occur about this time of the year of people going out in kayaks or canoes when the air temperatures have warmed but the water is still in the 40's and they've underestimated their skills in keeping their boat upright, and more importantly the consequences of capsizing in water that cold without being dressed for immersion. The frequency in which incidents like this happen tell me that there are a lot of people that significantly overestimate their limits, and the consequences can be fatal.

Yes, I agree that many people overestimate their limits. If they do that, that's just too bad. It really gets annoying when people have to be protected from themselves. We have some caches in our area that one has to climb out over a river on tree limbs to get to. Do I like it? No. I am very dissapointed though. Why? Because I am unable to get to them. I am a big guy, but it is more of my fear of heights that keep me from going for them. What about island caches? In early winter there may be enough ice to support you near shore. You move out ten or twenty yards and break through. Sheer stupidity! If people don't use common sense, I hate to say it, but maybe they deserve what they get.

Remember that waiver that we all had to agree to when we opened or accounts? We all hunt caches at our own risk. Plain and simple.

 

Amen to that. All I can say is well said.

[+Renegade Knight]

Most times location is only an issue as it relates to permission.

 

Some locations are a problem for other reasons. Safety is only a reason if it's not apparent but a real and present danger. A cache in a minefield for example.

 

It looks like this cache was in a spot that caused some discomfort for some cachers. That's not a reason to archive the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits.

 

I disagree. Most people can make a reasonable determination regarding something that is well beyond their limits of safety but I suspect that few can put a really accurate assessment as to what their limits are in reality. I've read too many incidents that occur about this time of the year of people going out in kayaks or canoes when the air temperatures have warmed but the water is still in the 40's and they've underestimated their skills in keeping their boat upright, and more importantly the consequences of capsizing in water that cold without being dressed for immersion. The frequency in which incidents like this happen tell me that there are a lot of people that significantly overestimate their limits, and the consequences can be fatal.

 

So you are for banning kayaking when the river is cold?

[+BlueDeuce]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits.

 

I disagree. Most people can make a reasonable determination regarding something that is well beyond their limits of safety but I suspect that few can put a really accurate assessment as to what their limits are in reality. I've read too many incidents that occur about this time of the year of people going out in kayaks or canoes when the air temperatures have warmed but the water is still in the 40's and they've underestimated their skills in keeping their boat upright, and more importantly the consequences of capsizing in water that cold without being dressed for immersion. The frequency in which incidents like this happen tell me that there are a lot of people that significantly overestimate their limits, and the consequences can be fatal.

Yes, I agree that many people overestimate their limits. If they do that, that's just too bad. It really gets annoying when people have to be protected from themselves. We have some caches in our area that one has to climb out over a river on tree limbs to get to. Do I like it? No. I am very dissapointed though. Why? Because I am unable to get to them. I am a big guy, but it is more of my fear of heights that keep me from going for them. What about island caches? In early winter there may be enough ice to support you near shore. You move out ten or twenty yards and break through. Sheer stupidity! If people don't use common sense, I hate to say it, but maybe they deserve what they get.

Remember that waiver that we all had to agree to when we opened or accounts? We all hunt caches at our own risk. Plain and simple.

 

Amen to that. All I can say is well said.

 

I'm sorry, I'm still not buying it.

 

All I have explained to me in this thread is that someone didn't like the cache and the owners bowed downed and are now complaining that someone complained.

 

So suggest they unarchive the caches and not worry about people who can't get to these caches.

 

Otherwise this is a big pile of stinky cheese.

[+ReadyOrNot]

[+joranda]

Recently in my area some caches had to be archived do to the geopolice/geocrybabbies.One of mine was included. I have a physically demanding job and i am in pretty goog shape. I enjoy a physically challenging cache, and would like to see more in my area. Everyone knows there limits.

 

I disagree. Most people can make a reasonable determination regarding something that is well beyond their limits of safety but I suspect that few can put a really accurate assessment as to what their limits are in reality. I've read too many incidents that occur about this time of the year of people going out in kayaks or canoes when the air temperatures have warmed but the water is still in the 40's and they've underestimated their skills in keeping their boat upright, and more importantly the consequences of capsizing in water that cold without being dressed for immersion. The frequency in which incidents like this happen tell me that there are a lot of people that significantly overestimate their limits, and the consequences can be fatal.

Yes, I agree that many people overestimate their limits. If they do that, that's just too bad. It really gets annoying when people have to be protected from themselves. We have some caches in our area that one has to climb out over a river on tree limbs to get to. Do I like it? No. I am very dissapointed though. Why? Because I am unable to get to them. I am a big guy, but it is more of my fear of heights that keep me from going for them. What about island caches? In early winter there may be enough ice to support you near shore. You move out ten or twenty yards and break through. Sheer stupidity! If people don't use common sense, I hate to say it, but maybe they deserve what they get.

Remember that waiver that we all had to agree to when we opened or accounts? We all hunt caches at our own risk. Plain and simple.

 

Amen to that. All I can say is well said.

 

I'm sorry, I'm still not buying it.

 

All I have explained to me in this thread is that someone didn't like the cache and the owners bowed downed and are now complaining that someone complained.

 

So suggest they unarchive the caches and not worry about people who can't get to these caches.

 

Otherwise this is a big pile of stinky cheese.

 

What is it that you need to know? I smell cheese here all the time.

Edited May 23, 2008 by joranda

[+BlueDeuce]

What does the site supervisor want to know?

 

I'd like to know why these caches were archived with a better explanation that somebody complained and the cache owner complied. Because if that's all this is...I'd tell them don't worry about it.

Edited May 23, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+joranda]

One of the caches was under a bridge 70+ feet in the air. You had to walk the catwalk to get it. The whole time you stayed on the catwalk. Before you all jump the gun and say it is not supposed to be on the bridge like that and that it is against the law. No one has permission to place any caches on bridges, guardrails, stop signs, street signs, fire hydrents and the list can go on, but we still find the caches at those spots and long them anyways with little to no fuss. Now when someone places one that is hard to get to and is mentioned in the cache page that this cache isn't for everyone, the ones who can't or won't do it complains. Just a reminder, the county or state would never give permission for any of those kind of caches, we just happen to call it public right of way when we submit our caches to the local reveiwer.

[+BlueDeuce]

And why were these caches archived?

[+Harry Dolphin]

And why were these caches archived?

 

Sounds like whiny crybabies. "Someone might get hurt!" Sometimes squealy wheels get oiled.

Oh. Wait. Wasn't I part of getting a cache achived that require running across a major highway, and climbing 15 feet up, into an abandoned rest room, full of porn and hypodermic needles?

[+BlueDeuce]

And why were these caches archived?

 

Sounds like whiny crybabies. "Someone might get hurt!" Sometimes squealy wheels get oiled.

Oh. Wait. Wasn't I part of getting a cache achived that require running across a major highway, and climbing 15 feet up, into an abandoned rest room, full of porn and hypodermic needles?

 

So tell the owners to ignore these crybabies and have the reviewers unarchive the caches.

[+joranda]

And why were these caches archived?

 

Sounds like whiny crybabies. "Someone might get hurt!" Sometimes squealy wheels get oiled.

Oh. Wait. Wasn't I part of getting a cache achived that require running across a major highway, and climbing 15 feet up, into an abandoned rest room, full of porn and hypodermic needles?

 

So tell the owners to ignore these crybabies and have the reviewers unarchive the caches.

 

I don't think it would be that easy knowing that it is under a bridge and you have to use the catwalk to get to it. I think the reviewer would frown on it.

[Mr.Yuck]

And why were these caches archived?

 

Sounds like whiny crybabies. "Someone might get hurt!" Sometimes squealy wheels get oiled.

Oh. Wait. Wasn't I part of getting a cache achived that require running across a major highway, and climbing 15 feet up, into an abandoned rest room, full of porn and hypodermic needles?

 

So tell the owners to ignore these crybabies and have the reviewers unarchive the caches.

 

I don't think it would be that easy knowing that it is under a bridge and you have to use the catwalk to get to it. I think the reviewer would frown on it.

 

Yup. Should never been published in the first place. For pete's sake, you can't put a cache on a catwalk under a bridge where no one but an IDOT employee has any reason to be there, ever. This is not rocket science. I'd bet every reviewer that ever set foot in these forums would agree (not that they ever look at this forum).

 

The one by the river, what's the problem? Where are the complaints? Were they all private? Why complain about the complainers, and bow down to them? This should not have been archived, in my opinion.

[+bri13]

GC1B9EM:My river view

 

I had recieved an email from a local cacher. He stated that the city didn't want liabilty if someone got hurt. After all the crap with the insane cache. I didn't wat to hear all the crying.As for unarchiving it, 2 days later a new cache popped up about 500ft away. The whole thing sucks. I've done alot harder things for a find.The holier then thou attitued of the local cachers just takes the fun out of it.

 

[Edited by moderator for potty language. Please express your opinions politely.]

Edited May 24, 2008 by Keystone

[+joranda]

And why were these caches archived?

 

Sounds like whiny crybabies. "Someone might get hurt!" Sometimes squealy wheels get oiled.

Oh. Wait. Wasn't I part of getting a cache achived that require running across a major highway, and climbing 15 feet up, into an abandoned rest room, full of porn and hypodermic needles?

 

So tell the owners to ignore these crybabies and have the reviewers unarchive the caches.

 

I don't think it would be that easy knowing that it is under a bridge and you have to use the catwalk to get to it. I think the reviewer would frown on it.

 

Yup. Should never been published in the first place. For pete's sake, you can't put a cache on a catwalk under a bridge where no one but an IDOT employee has any reason to be there, ever. This is not rocket science. I'd bet every reviewer that ever set foot in these forums would agree (not that they ever look at this forum).

 

The one by the river, what's the problem? Where are the complaints? Were they all private? Why complain about the complainers, and bow down to them? This should not have been archived, in my opinion.

 

Then all bridge, gaurdrail, stop signs are off limits too, but we still do them. For petes sake, don't you read very thing that is being said in the thread?

[Mr.Yuck]

And why were these caches archived?

 

Sounds like whiny crybabies. "Someone might get hurt!" Sometimes squealy wheels get oiled.

Oh. Wait. Wasn't I part of getting a cache achived that require running across a major highway, and climbing 15 feet up, into an abandoned rest room, full of porn and hypodermic needles?

 

So tell the owners to ignore these crybabies and have the reviewers unarchive the caches.

 

I don't think it would be that easy knowing that it is under a bridge and you have to use the catwalk to get to it. I think the reviewer would frown on it.

 

Yup. Should never been published in the first place. For pete's sake, you can't put a cache on a catwalk under a bridge where no one but an IDOT employee has any reason to be there, ever. This is not rocket science. I'd bet every reviewer that ever set foot in these forums would agree (not that they ever look at this forum).

 

The one by the river, what's the problem? Where are the complaints? Were they all private? Why complain about the complainers, and bow down to them? This should not have been archived, in my opinion.

 

Then all bridge, gaurdrail, stop signs are off limits too, but we still do them. For petes sake, don't you read very thing that is being said in the thread?

 

The Bridges pretty much are off limits, due to the quote of the guidelines posted by Blue Deuce. I may have kissed a few guardrails, but I ain't pulling no keyholder off of a stop sign, just to increment my find count by one. But that's not the point, the point is guardrails and stop signs are almost always in the public right-of-way, and people walk right by them on the public right-of-way every day. You could sit on a guardrail and not even raise an eyebrow. The catwalk of an active bridge is certainly not the public right of way. It's just a fact that we can't play this game anywhere we want, 24/7/365.

[Mr.Yuck]

GC1B9EM:My river view

 

I had recieved an email from a local cacher. He stated that the city didn't want liabilty if someone got hurt. After all the crap with the insane cache. I didn't wat to hear all the crying.As for unarchiving it, 2 days later a new cache popped up about 500ft away. The whole thing sucks a**. I've done alot harder things for a find.The holier then thou attitued of the local cachers just takes the fun out of it.

 

Ah, to heck with him! Does he work for the City? Even if he does, is he the official communications director? I don't think you should have listened to him, and it sounds like you're screwed now with the new cache 500 feet away. Now this was an excellent location for an extreme cache, while the catwalk of the bridge was a horrible idea. Public access, see Joranda?

[+BlueDeuce]

...I ain't pulling no keyholder off of a stop sign, just to increment my find count by one.

 

Not even this one? (The stop sign is on the backside of the Do not enter)

 

Edited May 24, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+joranda]

I'm up for it.

[Mr.Yuck]

...I ain't pulling no keyholder off of a stop sign, just to increment my find count by one.

 

Not even this one? (The stop sign is on the backside of the Do not enter)

 

 

Still no. But I'd like to meet that chick in the extreme lower left hand corner with the backpack and high heels next to the garbage can.

[+joranda]

She's the FTF prize.

[+jeffbouldin]

That San Francisco, are you sure its a chick?

[Mr.Yuck]

That San Francisco, are you sure its a chick?

 

You're right, she seems awfully tall (which is what intrigued me). Scratch that idea.

[Mr.Yuck]

One of the caches was under a bridge 70+ feet in the air. You had to walk the catwalk to get it. The whole time you stayed on the catwalk. Before you all jump the gun and say it is not supposed to be on the bridge like that and that it is against the law. No one has permission to place any caches on bridges, guardrails, stop signs, street signs, fire hydrents and the list can go on, but we still find the caches at those spots and long them anyways with little to no fuss. Now when someone places one that is hard to get to and is mentioned in the cache page that this cache isn't for everyone, the ones who can't or won't do it complains. Just a reminder, the county or state would never give permission for any of those kind of caches, we just happen to call it public right of way when we submit our caches to the local reveiwer.

 

OK, enough with the tall chick in San Francisco stuff. After thinking about it for a day and a half (not constantly, or anything), I can see where what I bolded above has some merit, Joranda. But where are you going with it? Just an observation of reviewers looking the other way and publishing them? Thank goodness, by the way, no one has placed a micro on a fire hydrant in my area (yet).

Edited May 25, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+furfool]

One of the caches was under a bridge 70+ feet in the air. You had to walk the catwalk to get it. The whole time you stayed on the catwalk. Before you all jump the gun and say it is not supposed to be on the bridge like that and that it is against the law. No one has permission to place any caches on bridges, guardrails, stop signs, street signs, fire hydrents and the list can go on, but we still find the caches at those spots and long them anyways with little to no fuss. Now when someone places one that is hard to get to and is mentioned in the cache page that this cache isn't for everyone, the ones who can't or won't do it complains. Just a reminder, the county or state would never give permission for any of those kind of caches, we just happen to call it public right of way when we submit our caches to the local reveiwer.

 

OK, enough with the tall chick in San Francisco stuff. After thinking about it for a day and a half (not constantly, or anything), I can see where what I bolded above has some merit, Joranda. But where are you going with it? Just an observation of reviewers looking the other way and publishing them? Thank goodness, by the way, no one has placed a micro on a fire hydrant in my area (yet).

Personally, as long as people use common sense, and that might be asking a lot, I see nothing wrong with "Don't ask,don't tell", when it comes to cache placement.

Here in Wisconsin, for example are the waysides, or rest stops as others may call them. The ones that are run by the state DOT are off limits because of liability concerns. Others that are run by counties or municipalities may or may not allow them. You need to obtain permission. As for the DOT, you can walk your dogs and let them crap all over the place, and quite a few people don't pick up after their dogs, no problem. You can throw a frisbee around or whatever when you need to get out and stretch, no problem. You can eat at a picnic table that I am sure doesn't get washed, no problem. Just don't place a geocache anywhere, because we don't want to be responsible. So as far as I'm concerned, don't ask don't tell. As long as common sense is used.

[+powercatjeffy]

A cache in a minefield for example.

 

 

 

I haven't seen too many T:1 D:5 caches. I approve of this one!

 

We'll need a volunteer to log the DNFs for other cachers tho.

[+buttaskotch]

There were a few here in NYC that were archived because a few local cachers were irked that it was too challenging dangerous or probably just too hard for them to get, because it would have taken time to retrieve them (numbers hounds).

Its a shame. I am not a person that loves these physical challenges but, honestly to each their own, let the buyer beware

[+Kiwi Nomad]

There is a series of cache in Dunedin NZ that anyone who has been in caching for a while would know about. All the titles are about nuts as in you would have to be nuts/crazy to hunt for them.

No one has ever complained about them, they get hardly any visits and those who go for them know what they are getting themselves into.

It just happens that Dunedin happens to have a lot of caches to keep everyone happy with a smiley face.

[+climbstuff]

Blah blah blah... Where did all the whiners come from?

 

The cache was rated correctly, right? As long as it wasn't an active bridge?! whoops! (guidelines!)

 

See this cache and its associated bookmark for an example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcy72p

 

Send Peoria Whining Bill to find it...

[+BlueDeuce]

Blah blah blah... Where did all the whiners come from?

 

The cache was rated correctly, right? As long as it wasn't an active bridge?! whoops! (guidelines!)

 

See this cache and its associated bookmark for an example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcy72p

 

Send Peoria Whining Bill to find it...

 

Whiners? I'd have to read back through the thread, from the beginning.

 

Ratings ain't got much to do with it. Outside of guideline caches need to be archived and removed. Inside of guideline caches need to be supported.

[+climbstuff]

Blah blah blah... Where did all the whiners come from?

 

The cache was rated correctly, right? As long as it wasn't an active bridge?! whoops! (guidelines!)

 

See this cache and its associated bookmark for an example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcy72p

 

Send Peoria Whining Bill to find it...

 

Whiners? I'd have to read back through the thread, from the beginning.

 

Ratings ain't got much to do with it. Outside of guideline caches need to be archived and removed. Inside of guideline caches need to be supported.

 

Read the archived cache page: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gc1a5vj

 

Guidelines are just that. Guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guideline "never mandatory"

[Mr.Yuck]

Blah blah blah... Where did all the whiners come from?

 

The cache was rated correctly, right? As long as it wasn't an active bridge?! whoops! (guidelines!)

 

See this cache and its associated bookmark for an example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcy72p

 

Send Peoria Whining Bill to find it...

 

Whiners? I'd have to read back through the thread, from the beginning.

 

Ratings ain't got much to do with it. Outside of guideline caches need to be archived and removed. Inside of guideline caches need to be supported.

 

Read the archived cache page: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gc1a5vj

 

Guidelines are just that. Guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guideline "never mandatory"

 

I thought this thread was dead, and that wasn't a nice bump, calling Peoria Bill a name. I live a thousand miles from the guy, and I've heard of him, and know he is a well-respected long tenured cacher. Would your first words to him be "Peoria Whining Bill" if you were to meet him at say The Midwest Geobash?

 

Gads, quoting a wikipedia definition of "guidelines"?? You should know that at geocaching.com, some guidelines are really written in stone rules. I know it's goofy, but that's the way it is, and you can take that up with The Powers That Be if you like. Try placing a cache 10 feet from a live railroad track, on a bench in front of the local elementary school, or in the Wal-Mart parking lot 250 feet from another existing cache, and tell the reviewer their just "guidelines".

 

The same goes for a catwalk of an active bridge, which is designed to be used by municipal employees, and no one else, for any reason, ever. You could always get together with a few like-minded individuals, and start your own geocaching website where such caches are permitted.

[+climbstuff]

I thought this thread was dead, and that wasn't a nice bump, calling Peoria Bill a name. I live a thousand miles from the guy, and I've heard of him, and know he is a well-respected long tenured cacher. Would your first words to him be "Peoria Whining Bill" if you were to meet him at say The Midwest Geobash?

 

Gads, quoting a wikipedia definition of "guidelines"?? You should know that at geocaching.com, some guidelines are really written in stone rules. I know it's goofy, but that's the way it is, and you can take that up with The Powers That Be if you like. Try placing a cache 10 feet from a live railroad track, on a bench in front of the local elementary school, or in the Wal-Mart parking lot 250 feet from another existing cache, and tell the reviewer their just "guidelines".

 

The same goes for a catwalk of an active bridge, which is designed to be used by municipal employees, and no one else, for any reason, ever. You could always get together with a few like-minded individuals, and start your own geocaching website where such caches are permitted.

 

If the guy was whining about a cache being against regulations (guidelines), then I agree with you.

 

...but he was whining about the danger factor!

[+bri13]

As far as i know P.B was'nt the one doing the crying but he does alot of it. We have a lot of geopolice in the area. I need to remember that not everyone can do what i can do when placing a cache, except the one that will be out this weekend,OH wait,don't want to give anything away. So let this thing go. Just remember,if you can't do it, walk away! Don't ruin it for those that can...Bri13....................

[+mtn-man]

I thought this thread was dead, and that wasn't a nice bump, calling Peoria Bill a name. I live a thousand miles from the guy, and I've heard of him, and know he is a well-respected long tenured cacher. Would your first words to him be "Peoria Whining Bill" if you were to meet him at say The Midwest Geobash?

 

Gads, quoting a wikipedia definition of "guidelines"?? You should know that at geocaching.com, some guidelines are really written in stone rules. I know it's goofy, but that's the way it is, and you can take that up with The Powers That Be if you like. Try placing a cache 10 feet from a live railroad track, on a bench in front of the local elementary school, or in the Wal-Mart parking lot 250 feet from another existing cache, and tell the reviewer their just "guidelines".

 

The same goes for a catwalk of an active bridge, which is designed to be used by municipal employees, and no one else, for any reason, ever. You could always get together with a few like-minded individuals, and start your own geocaching website where such caches are permitted.

 

If the guy was whining about a cache being against regulations (guidelines), then I agree with you.

 

...but he was whining about the danger factor!

It would be really easy to say that you are the one whining. Calling him names in the forums is not proper. How about we refrain from that, eh?

[+rickc309]

Blah blah blah... Where did all the whiners come from?

 

The cache was rated correctly, right? As long as it wasn't an active bridge?! whoops! (guidelines!)

 

See this cache and its associated bookmark for an example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcy72p

 

Send Peoria Whining Bill to find it...

 

Whiners? I'd have to read back through the thread, from the beginning.

 

Ratings ain't got much to do with it. Outside of guideline caches need to be archived and removed. Inside of guideline caches need to be supported.

 

Read the archived cache page: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gc1a5vj

 

Guidelines are just that. Guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guideline "never mandatory"

 

Well, after being invited to this thread I might as well say my side of it. As far as the INSAINE cache goes, I feel that it would most likely not be approved by I.D.O.T. but no more than any cache on any bride in this state and was thus archived. It was archived not because I.D.O.T. was aware of it, but that a fellow cacher felt he needed to point out the possible safety issue.

 

I have only been caching since Sept. of 07, but in that short time I have cached many caches that I feel would never be approved by either I.D.O.T., city, countie, or local businesses if approached.

 

Using these guidelines, ( Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports. ) the bridge INSANE was hidden on would not meet them. The bridge has never been deemed a potential terrorist target that I'm aware of. I have seen caches hidden on or under many bridges in my area, does a size matter?

 

As in comments written above this one, many caches are hidden on public structures. Has every cacher went through the red tape for approval, if you think so I have a bridge for sale. From the simplest guardrail cache to a cache hidden on a light pole base, electrical box, other utility, or fire plug etc, etc, know one is going to stand up and give permission and then be held as a responsible party.

 

The INSANE cache was not dangerous using proper methods, but it was obviously very intimidating. I did not want to cause further issues with my fellow cachers in my area and chose on my own to archive the cache.

 

As far as Bri13's "River Cache" goes, I cached it. There was no physical danger doing it, only the mental suffering some cachers were dealt by not trying. And the rule of thumb in this area I'm discovering is to whine and to point fingers to caches that are challenging. With the River Cache, the worst would have been getting a good dunk in the river with a bank to get out on within 25 feet. I felt more intimidated by some creek crossings I have made, the want-to-be geo-police or at least those who think they are made a bad call here. Maybe they should not make any calls and just mind their caches.

Edited June 3, 2008 by rickc309

[+StaticTank]

I don't normally like to get into these discussions but out of the two caches I think the "River Cache" was fine. Since I have never been there nor am I familiar with the area I can't say for sure.

 

The "Insane" cache looks like a lot of fun, HOWEVER I would have to agree that it is not in a good place. From my point of view it isn't a bad place because it is dangerous but because that is not a place the public should be visiting. I also agree that cache shouldn't be on electric boxes or light poles in Wal-Mart parking lots but I will still go find them. I have a feeling you would be charged with trespassing if you were caught on the catwalk. If the IDOT doesn't care if you are under there I would be all for that cache, but I think they would disapprove. Now the argument of electric boxes and LPC comes in here, HOWEVER this is on a much larger scale. You could potentially get arrested for having placed the cache there.

 

It sounds to me that you think just because it is dangerous and maybe just because everyone else doesn't get approval on LPCs and Electric boxes that this is OK.

 

Lets say I have an AWESOME spot for a cache! It is called "The Hall of Records" This is a unfinished vault behind Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. It is illegal to climb up Mount Rushmore. So lets say I managed to sneak up there and hide a cache there. Lets say that the location of the cache makes it past the reviewer and it gets published. So I should write this in the description: "This is an EXTREME cache! If you are too scared or weak to search for this cache then go somewhere else! If you are not good enough to get past the Park Rangers, Police, FBI, or Homeland Security then you are not a good enough cacher to do EXTREME caches, WALK AWAY."

 

For more info on the Hall or Records:

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2007/...-mount-rushmore

 

This is obviously going to sound crazy to any rational person. What you have with the "Insane" cache is something between "The Hall of Records" and "Electric Box 4". It is not a good location because it is trespassing. The reason every one gets away with Electric Boxes and LPCs is because they are so abundant and nobody really notices them.

 

I am all for Extreme Caches but I don't think you should have to worry about getting arrested when you go looking for any cache. It is supposed to be fun.

[Mr.Yuck]

...I ain't pulling no keyholder off of a stop sign, just to increment my find count by one.

 

Not even this one? (The stop sign is on the backside of the Do not enter)

 

 

Still no. But I'd like to meet that chick in the extreme lower left hand corner with the backpack and high heels next to the garbage can.

 

Ya' know, I just stumbled on a 5-piece all tranny power pop band from San Francisco the other day, and I was immediately reminded of this picture. They're not bad by the way. (The music, I mean).