Unacceptable Cache Hides - In Your Opinion

[+TrailGators]

Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt?

A stampede at a transformer? Or are you talking about a cache hidden in a field where buffalo are around? I think I'd have to say that the seeker assumes the risk of stampede when searching near buffalo too.

 

I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white.

Your what if's are from way out in left field, so please don't. (I'm still not sure of the stampede comment) Some things are not black and white, but this one seems to be. The disclaimer clearly states that the seeker assumes all risks involved in seeking a cache. The only exception to this is also pretty clear, which involves the booby trap that KBI mentioned.

 

Maybe a cache hider rigged a cache to start a herd of buffalo stampeding towards the cache when opened, and the seeker was injured. I'm guessing that would be illegal.

 

You just proved Fizzy's #1 theory. So I will educate you with the English language to help you out.

 

Look at the second definition of the word stampede:

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...

First line of the disclaimer assigns the responsibility to the seeker:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

ANY lawyer worth hiring could get around that within seconds...I'm betting we all know that perfectly well!

 

To what purpose and effect? To win a multi million dollar judgment against the working stiffs who place caches? Worst case I hire my own attorney to help me liquidate my assets which I will pour into my mortgage and then file bankrupsy exempting my house. The poor sap who thought their busted leg for doing something stupid was worth something will find out that they can't even affort their own attorney. They will also find what exactly a "listing site" is.

 

There are no deep pockets to be had.

[+sbell111]

 

Since I have no idea who 007BigD is or what your point is (nor do I care), you probably should go ahead and tell him (her?).

 

007BigD is the person who is being held responsible (financially) for the bomb scare that was discussed in another thread. He is the one being made to pay for CalTrans...

As I recall from that other thread, they sent him a bill that he has agreed to pay. That is quite different from having a fine legally accessed against him.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Potato, potatoe.

 

RK...the fact you'd need to hire a lawyer, liquidate etc etc means that you'll be losing regardless if you win lose or draw as the outcome. I personally would not want this! Since MOST lawyers will work pro-bono, I'm thinking I wouldn't need to worry about pay, he/she'd either acknowledge there's a case or not and we'd go from there!!

Edited January 5, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+tozainamboku]

You don't seem to understand that the person rummaging through an electric box, searching on a transformer etc WOULDN'T if not for the hidden cache. By doing so (hiding a cache in these), you are asking the searcher to look in places, do things they likely wouldn't ever do had it not been for the cache!

 

I think yu understood my example...by not telling of the dangers, you can be held responsible. It's happened many times, many a lawyer has lined their pockets with just such cases!

I wouldn't reach in guardrail or lift a lamp post skirt where a black widow spider may be waiting if it had not been for the cache as well. I wouldn't have climb up slippery rocks if it had not been for the cache. I wouldn't have bushwhacked through the brush and later had to remove ticks had it not been for the cache. And I've probably done all these things on caches where the cache owner did not post attributes or warned about the conditions in the description. I would hope that hiders would warn of real potential dangers on the cache page or by using attributes, but every time I look for a cache I make my own decision about whether it is safe for me or not independently of whether the cache owner warned me.

 

I've always hated geocaches hidden near or on electrical equipment. I dislike them because of safety as well as legal issues.

I hate caches hidden on Playground equipment. Why would you want to bring adults to a park, to snoop around playground equipment, all the while they are watched and confronted by suspicious parents.

I can't stand caches hidden underneath lampposts, in the middle of parking lots. These caches have no redeeming value to me.

I can't stand caches where the cache hider insists on sharing the "local bum outhouse" or the illegal trash dumping site.

I can't stand caches hidden in "full view" of businesses and house, where the people with a view of the cache know nothing about the cache.

And yet Kit Fox has hidden caches where I had to reach under bushes in the desert where there might be a rattlesnake or some other venomous creature. He has hidden caches where I had to hop boulders along a creek where I could've slipped and hit my head and there wasn't going to be anyone to come find me for weeks. In general I would rate his caches far more dangerous than an electric box hide or having to deal with suspicious parents at a playground. I will give him credit for using the proper terrain ratings and attributes.

Edited January 5, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Renegade Knight]

...Some have said that the IowaAdmin went over the line using his own judgement...what I see is that he is backed up by GS (read the part I boldened). I haven't ever seen this before, but I APPLAUD the GS PTB for realizing this!!

 

It's my experience that TBTP back up their volunteers. It can be annoying when you are on the recieving in of an ad hoc judgment, but it's good business to support the volunteers that you depend on for your livelyhood.

[+Renegade Knight]

Potato, potatoe.

 

RK...the fact you'd need to hire a lawyer, liquidate etc etc means that you'll be losing regardless if you win lose or draw as the outcome. I personally would not want this!

 

My point is that since there really isn't any money to be made doing this, it's a low risk thing.

 

Your point (which I agree with) is that anybody can sue anybody, at any time, for any reason, and that if someone chose to do so, the disclaimer won't prevent the suite. At best it will help, at worst it won't hurt.

 

Very little of the rest of our lives have even that much protection.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...Some have said that the IowaAdmin went over the line using his own judgement...what I see is that he is backed up by GS (read the part I boldened). I haven't ever seen this before, but I APPLAUD the GS PTB for realizing this!!

 

It's my experience that TBTP back up their volunteers. It can be annoying when you are on the recieving in of an ad hoc judgment, but it's good business to support the volunteers that you depend on for your livelyhood.

 

Please don't start the twist game, it's been great having a real and productive debate without the games!

[+Renegade Knight]

* (... unless the hider creates an intentionally dangerous trap that is, in which case the hider is guilty of a crime. But that isn't what is being debated here. I haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone here has come out in favor of lethal booby traps – despite RR's implications otherwise.)

I don't think anyone is favor of hiding caches that could lead to an injury no matter who is found to be at fault.

 

Your key word was "intention", but proving negligence doesn't rely on proving intention. Like I said before we would need to bring up a specific case to really get into this. This is where the law becomes interesting because it is not black and white. It is case dependent.

 

Negligence implies a duty of care (I'm probably butchering the right terms) that meets some expected standard. What's the duty of care in a hobby activity? It's got to be a lot less than what's imposed on lisenced professionals.

 

I'd say it's a lot closer to the duty of care owed by a frisbee player.

[+TrailGators]

And yet Kit Fox has hidden caches where I had to reach under bushes in the desert where there might be a rattlesnake or some other venomous creature. He has hidden caches where I had to hop boulders along a creek where I could've slipped and hit my head and there wasn't going to be anyone to come find me for weeks. In general I would rate his caches far more dangerous than an electric box hide or having to deal with suspicious parents at a playground. I will give him credit for using the proper terrain ratings and attributes.

The debate wasn't which placement was most dangerous. I bet Kit Fox uses attributes to warn people about rattlesnakes and other potential dangers.

 

Is there an electrical shock attribute? Of course not because people shouldn't ever get shocked if people follow the guidelines. GS doesn't want people to hide caches in places that they didn't get permission and neither do the people that own the electrical equipment.

[Mushtang]

Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt?

A stampede at a transformer? Or are you talking about a cache hidden in a field where buffalo are around? I think I'd have to say that the seeker assumes the risk of stampede when searching near buffalo too.

I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white.

Your what if's are from way out in left field, so please don't. (I'm still not sure of the stampede comment) Some things are not black and white, but this one seems to be. The disclaimer clearly states that the seeker assumes all risks involved in seeking a cache. The only exception to this is also pretty clear, which involves the booby trap that KBI mentioned.

 

Maybe a cache hider rigged a cache to start a herd of buffalo stampeding towards the cache when opened, and the seeker was injured. I'm guessing that would be illegal.

You just proved Fizzy's #1 theory. So I will educate you with the English language to help you out.

 

Look at the second definition of the word stampede:

 

I used the word correctly according to definition number 1. You thought I should have assumed you meant definition number 2. Hmm. This proves that I don't know the English language? Okaaaay.

 

I think it speaks more to what Sbell was saying, in that if you want people to understand what you mean, perhaps you should be more clear when you type something. All you said was, "what if there was a stampede and people were hurt". You didn't say, "what if there was a stampede of people running by the cache on their way to a nearby sale at Macy's, and the seeker was hurt" or whatever you were thinking.

 

I'm sorry, but my inability to read your mind doesn't mean that I don't know the English language. But nice try.

[+TrailGators]

* (... unless the hider creates an intentionally dangerous trap that is, in which case the hider is guilty of a crime. But that isn't what is being debated here. I haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone here has come out in favor of lethal booby traps – despite RR's implications otherwise.)

I don't think anyone is favor of hiding caches that could lead to an injury no matter who is found to be at fault.

 

Your key word was "intention", but proving negligence doesn't rely on proving intention. Like I said before we would need to bring up a specific case to really get into this. This is where the law becomes interesting because it is not black and white. It is case dependent.

 

Negligence implies a duty of care (I'm probably butchering the right terms) that meets some expected standard. What's the duty of care in a hobby activity? It's got to be a lot less than what's imposed on lisenced professionals.

 

I'd say it's a lot closer to the duty of care owed by a frisbee player.

I think you mean due diligence. Like I said before we would need a specific case to discuss and prove that. I am just asserting that such a case could exist and that things are not black and white.

 

I am also asserting that:

1) Hiders should always think before they place a cache.

2) Seekers should also assume that #1 doesn't always happen.

3) If we all try to do #1 and #2 then we will all be better off.

Edited January 5, 2009 by TrailGators

[+Rockin Roddy]

Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt?

A stampede at a transformer? Or are you talking about a cache hidden in a field where buffalo are around? I think I'd have to say that the seeker assumes the risk of stampede when searching near buffalo too.

I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white.

Your what if's are from way out in left field, so please don't. (I'm still not sure of the stampede comment) Some things are not black and white, but this one seems to be. The disclaimer clearly states that the seeker assumes all risks involved in seeking a cache. The only exception to this is also pretty clear, which involves the booby trap that KBI mentioned.

 

Maybe a cache hider rigged a cache to start a herd of buffalo stampeding towards the cache when opened, and the seeker was injured. I'm guessing that would be illegal.

You just proved Fizzy's #1 theory. So I will educate you with the English language to help you out.

 

Look at the second definition of the word stampede:

 

I used the word correctly according to definition number 1. You thought I should have assumed you meant definition number 2. Hmm. This proves that I don't know the English language? Okaaaay.

 

I think it speaks more to what Sbell was saying, in that if you want people to understand what you mean, perhaps you should be more clear when you type something. All you said was, "what if there was a stampede and people were hurt". You didn't say, "what if there was a stampede of people running by the cache on their way to a nearby sale at Macy's, and the seeker was hurt" or whatever you were thinking.

 

I'm sorry, but my inability to read your mind doesn't mean that I don't know the English language. But nice try.

 

Are you trying to tell us you had no idea a stampede could be human as well as "buffalo"?? I think we're getting back into the "twist game", let's not go backwards adn let's try to keep the productive debate alive!

Edited January 5, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

* (... unless the hider creates an intentionally dangerous trap that is, in which case the hider is guilty of a crime. But that isn't what is being debated here. I haven't read the entire thread, but I doubt anyone here has come out in favor of lethal booby traps – despite RR's implications otherwise.)

I don't think anyone is favor of hiding caches that could lead to an injury no matter who is found to be at fault.

 

Your key word was "intention", but proving negligence doesn't rely on proving intention. Like I said before we would need to bring up a specific case to really get into this. This is where the law becomes interesting because it is not black and white. It is case dependent.

Negligence implies a duty of care (I'm probably butchering the right terms) that meets some expected standard. What's the duty of care in a hobby activity? It's got to be a lot less than what's imposed on lisenced professionals.

 

I'd say it's a lot closer to the duty of care owed by a frisbee player.

I think you mean due diligence. Like I said before we would need a specific case to discuss and prove that. I am just asserting that such a case could exist and that things are not black and white.

Actually, 'Duty of Care' is correct. It is one of the elements that must be established when determining negligence.

I am also asserting that:

1) Hiders should always think before they place a cache.

2) Seekers should also assume that #1 doesn't always happen.

3) If we all try to do #1 and #2 then we will all be better off.

I certainly agree with this part of your post, as I suspect all participants in this thread do. Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt?

A stampede at a transformer? Or are you talking about a cache hidden in a field where buffalo are around? I think I'd have to say that the seeker assumes the risk of stampede when searching near buffalo too.

I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white.

Your what if's are from way out in left field, so please don't. (I'm still not sure of the stampede comment) Some things are not black and white, but this one seems to be. The disclaimer clearly states that the seeker assumes all risks involved in seeking a cache. The only exception to this is also pretty clear, which involves the booby trap that KBI mentioned.

 

Maybe a cache hider rigged a cache to start a herd of buffalo stampeding towards the cache when opened, and the seeker was injured. I'm guessing that would be illegal.

You just proved Fizzy's #1 theory. So I will educate you with the English language to help you out.

 

Look at the second definition of the word stampede:

 

I used the word correctly according to definition number 1. You thought I should have assumed you meant definition number 2. Hmm. This proves that I don't know the English language? Okaaaay.

 

I think it speaks more to what Sbell was saying, in that if you want people to understand what you mean, perhaps you should be more clear when you type something. All you said was, "what if there was a stampede and people were hurt". You didn't say, "what if there was a stampede of people running by the cache on their way to a nearby sale at Macy's, and the seeker was hurt" or whatever you were thinking.

 

I'm sorry, but my inability to read your mind doesn't mean that I don't know the English language. But nice try.

In that case, then I guess you did know what I meant, so that moves you to Fizzy's #2 theory. Anyhow, it doesn't take much imagination to think of cases where a bomb scare could cause a stampede of people and someone could get hurt or worse. So, I didn't think I needed to explain it. BUt now that I know you are opeating under Fizzy's #2 theory then I will have to be extremely careful with my choice of words with you.

[+sbell111]

Not that I really care, but has Fizzy written down these wonderous theories? Usually, he just pops into a thread to make a quick snarky comment and then disappears. Did he post something of substance that I missed?

Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

Not that I really care, but has Fizzy written down these wonderous theories? Usually, he just pops into a thread to make a quick snarky comment and then disappears. Did he post something of substance that I missed?

 

Actually, he pointed out how others were playing the "twist" game...twisting words to fit their own use and making it out that something I said was something it wasn't. He hit the nail square on the head!

[+KBI]

Many have described the act of placing a cache on an electrical box as "negligent" on the part of the hider. Many have pointed out that if the cache didn’t entice cachers to visit the electrical box, then seekers wouldn't be exposed to the hazard. This seems to be the crux of the negligence argument.

 

Electrical boxes present a safety hazard, potentially fatal. Yet the risk of electrocution is extremely low. That much, at least, does not appear to be in dispute.

 

But consider that food poisoning also presents a health hazard, also potentially fatal. Yet the risk of food poisoning is also extremely low.

 

This is the argument I keep hearing: If a cache hider places a cache anywhere on, or even near, an electrical box, then not only is the cache seeker completely blameless for any action he chooses to take involving tampering with said equipment, but the hider himself must be considered negligent for enticing seekers near the electrical box and thereby exposing seekers to the threat of invisible and extremely unlikely yet potentially fatal electrocution.

 

By the same reasoning, then: If a cache hider places a cache anywhere on, or even near, a restaurant building, then not only is the cache seeker completely blameless for any bellyaches resulting from any restaurant food he chooses to eat, but the hider himself must be considered negligent for enticing seekers near the restaurant and thereby exposing seekers to the threat of invisible and extremely unlikely yet potentially fatal food poisoning.

 

Where, then, is the outcry against caches which entice cachers into the vicinity of restaurants?

[+sbell111]

Not that I really care, but has Fizzy written down these wonderous theories? Usually, he just pops into a thread to make a quick snarky comment and then disappears. Did he post something of substance that I missed?

 

Actually, he pointed out how others were playing the "twist" game...twisting words to fit their own use and making it out that something I said was something it wasn't. He hit the nail square on the head!

Of course, it was later shown that the post that he was snarkily responding to did not 'twist' anyone's words. I assume that this would negate any of his implied 'theories' related to that post. Of course a quick review of the post in question finds the expected rudeness (perhaps in violation of the forum guidelines) but found no 'theories'.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Many have described the act of placing a cache on an electrical box as "negligent" on the part of the hider. Many have pointed out that if the cache didn’t entice cachers to visit the electrical box, then seekers wouldn't be exposed to the hazard. This seems to be the crux of the negligence argument.

 

Electrical boxes present a safety hazard, potentially fatal. Yet the risk of electrocution is extremely low. That much, at least, does not appear to be in dispute.

 

But consider that food poisoning also presents a health hazard, also potentially fatal. Yet the risk of food poisoning is also extremely low.

 

This is the argument I keep hearing: If a cache hider places a cache anywhere on, or even near, an electrical box, then not only is the cache seeker completely blameless for any action he chooses to take involving tampering with said equipment, but the hider himself must be considered negligent for enticing seekers near the electrical box and thereby exposing seekers to the threat of invisible and extremely unlikely yet potentially fatal electrocution.

 

By the same reasoning, then: If a cache hider places a cache anywhere on, or even near, a restaurant building, then not only is the cache seeker completely blameless for any bellyaches resulting from any restaurant food he chooses to eat, but the hider himself must be considered negligent for enticing seekers near the restaurant and thereby exposing seekers to the threat of invisible and extremely unlikely yet potentially fatal food poisoning.

 

Where, then, is the outcry against caches which entice cachers into the vicinity of restaurants?

 

You're making up argument that hasn't even been said! No one said the seeker is 100% not responsible, where do you see that?

 

And, you'd be surprised how often botulism is experienced. Most times, it's just not that bad a case and most think they had a "bug" (you know, like flu or such...not a real life bug..just so we don't start the games again).

[Mushtang]

Plus what if there was a stampede and people were hurt?

A stampede at a transformer? Or are you talking about a cache hidden in a field where buffalo are around? I think I'd have to say that the seeker assumes the risk of stampede when searching near buffalo too.

I could "what if" this to death but my point is that things are not always black and white.

Your what if's are from way out in left field, so please don't. (I'm still not sure of the stampede comment) Some things are not black and white, but this one seems to be. The disclaimer clearly states that the seeker assumes all risks involved in seeking a cache. The only exception to this is also pretty clear, which involves the booby trap that KBI mentioned.

 

Maybe a cache hider rigged a cache to start a herd of buffalo stampeding towards the cache when opened, and the seeker was injured. I'm guessing that would be illegal.

You just proved Fizzy's #1 theory. So I will educate you with the English language to help you out.

 

Look at the second definition of the word stampede:

 

I used the word correctly according to definition number 1. You thought I should have assumed you meant definition number 2. Hmm. This proves that I don't know the English language? Okaaaay.

 

I think it speaks more to what Sbell was saying, in that if you want people to understand what you mean, perhaps you should be more clear when you type something. All you said was, "what if there was a stampede and people were hurt". You didn't say, "what if there was a stampede of people running by the cache on their way to a nearby sale at Macy's, and the seeker was hurt" or whatever you were thinking.

 

I'm sorry, but my inability to read your mind doesn't mean that I don't know the English language. But nice try.

In that case, then I guess you did know what I meant, so that moves you to Fizzy's #2 theory. Anyhow, it doesn't take much imagination to think of cases where a bomb scare could cause a stampede of people and someone could get hurt or worse. So, I didn't think I needed to explain it. BUt now that I know you are opeating under Fizzy's #2 theory then I will have to be extremely careful with my choice of words with you.

Dude, with all the strange things you come up with, I honestly had no idea what you meant when you mentioned getting hurt in a stampede. Again, if you had just been a little more clear, I wouldn't have had to read your mind.

 

I honestly thought you were talking about a stampede of animals and not a reaction of people running from a bomb scare, which is what I see now that meant. Both are about as likely I would think.

 

So an unacceptable cache hide in your opinion, is one that could be mistaken for a bomb. Um.. do you have any idea how many caches are hidden in ammo cans????

[+fizzymagic]

Not that I really care, but has Fizzy written down these wonderous theories? Usually, he just pops into a thread to make a quick snarky comment and then disappears. Did he post something of substance that I missed?

Nothing of substance. Only about methods.

 

FWIW, I believe that finders are responsible for their own actions and don't need any geocaching "nanny state" to protect them from themselves. In that, I disagree with the side of this discussion represented by those who have been misquoted and misinterpreted, and I agree with the basic position of those whose tactics I have criticized.

 

But agreement or disagreement on the basic topic being discussed is not an excuse for dishonest debating tactics. In general, when one stoops to twisting the words of his opponent, it is a sign that he has run out of substantive arguments.

 

I see you have later made the claim that it has been shown that the original post to which I objected did not, in fact, misrepresent the words of the post to which it responded. That statement is untrue. Indeed, since it was extremely obvious to anyone with a passing competence in English that the meaning of the post had, in fact, been misrepresented, such a demonstration is impossible. Would you point me to the post where, in your mind, it was demonstrated that there was no misrepresentation?

Edited January 5, 2009 by fizzymagic

[+Rockin Roddy]

Not that I really care, but has Fizzy written down these wonderous theories? Usually, he just pops into a thread to make a quick snarky comment and then disappears. Did he post something of substance that I missed?

 

Actually, he pointed out how others were playing the "twist" game...twisting words to fit their own use and making it out that something I said was something it wasn't. He hit the nail square on the head!

Of course, it was later shown that the post that he was snarkily responding to did not 'twist' anyone's words. I assume that this would negate any of his implied 'theories' related to that post. Of course a quick review of the post in question finds the expected rudeness (perhaps in violation of the forum guidelines) but found no 'theories'.

 

You're bent on playing the twist game some more?? Why do you feel the need to derail a productive debate with that silliness?? And, what proof?? Because YOU said so??

Edited January 5, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Rockin Roddy]

Nah, we're just leaving the productiveness of this debate to play twist games again. I'll leave you to this as I have better things to do. Have fun!!

[+ImaMystic]

Boy or should I say boys... how about you all play nice. As a new geocacher I assumed that the forums would yield some relevant information about this activity. I can read the FAQ's but the working knowledge is here on the forums. We're thinking of planning and placing our first hide...hmm...what not to do, what's safe ...stuff not covered by the guidelines. The threads covering unacceptable cache hides, dangerous shocks, caching blunders ... well we thought we might actually learn something here and you just might if you're willing to slog thru the crap. I'm not figuring out how to make 14 quotes to point fingers ... you all know what you're up to. I don't know what the real agenda is but I would suggest to the moderators that they move this inside game to a padded playground so you all don't get hurt or confuse the newcomers. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'm just a little annoyed that where I was hoping to find relevent information all I found was a pi** ing contest ...could you all parse that word? If I ruffled a few feathers I'm sorry it wasn't my intention. I can see the care and respect that each of you brings to the Boards as a Charter Member or Premium Member with thousands of posts. Would you recommend newcomers stick to another forum for information? If I see a red suitcase on a thread should I just avoid it? Well, I feel better having expressed my opinion ... maybe that's what all the fuss is about ...

[+TrailGators]

So an unacceptable cache hide in your opinion, is one that could be mistaken for a bomb.

I've said repeatedly that it depends on the case.

[+sbell111]

Not that I really care, but has Fizzy written down these wonderous theories? Usually, he just pops into a thread to make a quick snarky comment and then disappears. Did he post something of substance that I missed?

Nothing of substance. Only about methods.

 

FWIW, I believe that finders are responsible for their own actions and don't need any geocaching "nanny state" to protect them from themselves. In that, I disagree with the side of this discussion represented by those who have been misquoted and misinterpreted, and I agree with the basic position of those whose tactics I have criticized.

 

But agreement or disagreement on the basic topic being discussed is not an excuse for dishonest debating tactics. In general, when one stoops to twisting the words of his opponent, it is a sign that he has run out of substantive arguments.

What do your theories say about those who constantly complain about 'twisting of words' when no misrepresentation is taking place?

I see you have later made the claim that it has been shown that the original post to which I objected did not, in fact, misrepresent the words of the post to which it responded. That statement is untrue. Indeed, since it was extremely obvious to anyone with a passing competence in English that the meaning of the post had, in fact, been misrepresented, such a demonstration is impossible.

First, as I'm sure that you agree, we have nothing to go by but the actual words that are posted. Further, anyone who actually is able to use the English language would understand that Mushtang interpreted the post correctly, as it was written.

Would you point me to the post where, in your mind, it was demonstrated that there was no misrepresentation?

One problem with just randomly showing up in threads to make a snarky comment and then disappearing is that you miss lots of posts. Go back and read from post 148, when you have a moment. Edited January 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Boy or should I say boys... how about you all play nice. As a new geocacher I assumed that the forums would yield some relevant information about this activity. I can read the FAQ's but the working knowledge is here on the forums. We're thinking of planning and placing our first hide...hmm...what not to do, what's safe ...stuff not covered by the guidelines. The threads covering unacceptable cache hides, dangerous shocks, caching blunders ... well we thought we might actually learn something here and you just might if you're willing to slog thru the crap. I'm not figuring out how to make 14 quotes to point fingers ... you all know what you're up to. I don't know what the real agenda is but I would suggest to the moderators that they move this inside game to a padded playground so you all don't get hurt or confuse the newcomers. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'm just a little annoyed that where I was hoping to find relevent information all I found was a pi** ing contest ...could you all parse that word? If I ruffled a few feathers I'm sorry it wasn't my intention. I can see the care and respect that each of you brings to the Boards as a Charter Member or Premium Member with thousands of posts. Would you recommend newcomers stick to another forum for information? If I see a red suitcase on a thread should I just avoid it? Well, I feel better having expressed my opinion ... maybe that's what all the fuss is about ...

I'd be glad to help you. Why don't you start by explaining your cache idea?

[+tozainamboku]

And yet Kit Fox has hidden caches where I had to reach under bushes in the desert where there might be a rattlesnake or some other venomous creature. He has hidden caches where I had to hop boulders along a creek where I could've slipped and hit my head and there wasn't going to be anyone to come find me for weeks. In general I would rate his caches far more dangerous than an electric box hide or having to deal with suspicious parents at a playground. I will give him credit for using the proper terrain ratings and attributes.

The debate wasn't which placement was most dangerous. I bet Kit Fox uses attributes to warn people about rattlesnakes and other potential dangers.

I gave him credit for using attributes but I have also found cache hidden by other people that didn't use the attributes or provide warning in the cache description for similar dangers. The point is that you have to determine for yourself if you feel safe looking for a cache and the debate on whether you can be sued if someone gets hurt if you didn't add the warning is not particularly relevant.

Is there an electrical shock attribute? Of course not because people shouldn't ever get shocked if people follow the guidelines. GS doesn't want people to hide caches in places that they didn't get permission and neither do the people that own the electrical equipment.

There isn't an angry parents attribute either, but I suppose you could use stealth required. There isn't a you need to cross the street or a cache may be more than 6 feet above the ground attribute. Not every danger can be foreseen. I guess one could use dangerous area for caches in parking lots or on electric equipment.

 

You may have a point by raising the permission issue. It is true that most utility companies have a simple policy about placing anything on their equipment. They basically don't want anything that might interfere with the use of the equipment or have their equipment defaced and/or used as a billboard to advertise or promote an agenda (similar to what some other companies do). It is unlikely that the reason is so people don't touch the enclosure. The equipment is enclosed in a grounded metal box particularly to make it safe to be in a area where it might be touched by someone. The enclosure protects the passerby from the equipment as well as the equipment from the passerby. Groundspeak could decide to require reviewers to verify that permission was given if the cache is attached to equipment. That would not eliminate these caches however as in most case the reviewer couldn't tell from the cache page if the cache is on the equipment or simply close by. Of course there could be a policy where cachers are encourage to post SBA on these caches to trigger the reviewer investigating permission. I'm sure the reviewers would appreciate the help .

[Mushtang]

So an unacceptable cache hide in your opinion, is one that could be mistaken for a bomb.

I've said repeatedly that it depends on the case.

I wonder if Fizzy has any theories on debating tactics where a statement is quoted out of context and replied to, and the actual question asked is completely ignored?

 

He's probably fine with it.

 

Dang, there I go twisting words and parsing English incorrectly like I always seem to do. I must have run out of substantive arguments (like preparing to point out that ammo cans might be a bigger "bomb scare" problem than transformers are an "electrocution problem", but nobody seems to care about ammo cans).

[+sbell111]

Not that I really care, but has Fizzy written down these wonderous theories? Usually, he just pops into a thread to make a quick snarky comment and then disappears. Did he post something of substance that I missed?

Actually, he pointed out how others were playing the "twist" game...twisting words to fit their own use and making it out that something I said was something it wasn't. He hit the nail square on the head!

Of course, it was later shown that the post that he was snarkily responding to did not 'twist' anyone's words. I assume that this would negate any of his implied 'theories' related to that post. Of course a quick review of the post in question finds the expected rudeness (perhaps in violation of the forum guidelines) but found no 'theories'.

You're bent on playing the twist game some more?? Why do you feel the need to derail a productive debate with that silliness?? And, what proof?? Because YOU said so??

Because grammer has rules. Sentences mean what is written, not what someone wishes was written. It's fine if you say 'Oops. What I meant to say is...'. There is no downside to that. Just don't argue that what you wrote means something that it doesn't. If anything, you are trying to twist your own words and that's just sad.

Nah, we're just leaving the productiveness of this debate to play twist games again. I'll leave you to this as I have better things to do. Have fun!!

Why is it that you and Trailgators can refer to fizzy's magnificant post but if we do it it's 'twisting'. BTW, you are misusing that term. It is not twisting to discuss what was actually posted without reading more into it. You should stop playing the victim, in my opinion.

[+sbell111]

Boy or should I say boys... how about you all play nice. As a new geocacher I assumed that the forums would yield some relevant information about this activity. I can read the FAQ's but the working knowledge is here on the forums. We're thinking of planning and placing our first hide...hmm...what not to do, what's safe ...stuff not covered by the guidelines. The threads covering unacceptable cache hides, dangerous shocks, caching blunders ... well we thought we might actually learn something here and you just might if you're willing to slog thru the carp. I'm not figuring out how to make 14 quotes to point fingers ... you all know what you're up to. I don't know what the real agenda is but I would suggest to the moderators that they move this inside game to a padded playground so you all don't get hurt or confuse the newcomers. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'm just a little annoyed that where I was hoping to find relevent information all I found was a pi** ing contest ...could you all parse that word? If I ruffled a few feathers I'm sorry it wasn't my intention. I can see the care and respect that each of you brings to the Boards as a Charter Member or Premium Member with thousands of posts. Would you recommend newcomers stick to another forum for information? If I see a red suitcase on a thread should I just avoid it? Well, I feel better having expressed my opinion ... maybe that's what all the fuss is about ...

It would serve you to remember that everything discussed by anyone other than TPTB is just an opinion. Coming into this thread to identify places that you must not hide a cache is a big mistake, in my opinion.

 

Just use your own judgement. Make sure that your cache meets the guidelines and accomplishes what you want it to.

[+TrailGators]

So an unacceptable cache hide in your opinion, is one that could be mistaken for a bomb.

I've said repeatedly that it depends on the case.

I wonder if Fizzy has any theories on debating tactics where a statement is quoted out of context and replied to, and the actual question asked is completely ignored?

 

He's probably fine with it.

 

Dang, there I go twisting words and parsing English incorrectly like I always seem to do. I must have run out of substantive arguments (like preparing to point out that ammo cans might be a bigger "bomb scare" problem than transformers are an "electrocution problem", but nobody seems to care about ammo cans).

I'm not going to make sweeping statements. I need specifics to answer this on a case by case basis. Why don't you give me some examples? This might also be informative for newbies.

[+Moose Mob]

Don't make me get involved here.

[Mushtang]

So an unacceptable cache hide in your opinion, is one that could be mistaken for a bomb.

I've said repeatedly that it depends on the case.

I wonder if Fizzy has any theories on debating tactics where a statement is quoted out of context and replied to, and the actual question asked is completely ignored?

 

He's probably fine with it.

 

Dang, there I go twisting words and parsing English incorrectly like I always seem to do. I must have run out of substantive arguments (like preparing to point out that ammo cans might be a bigger "bomb scare" problem than transformers are an "electrocution problem", but nobody seems to care about ammo cans).

I'm not going to make sweeping statements. I need specifics to answer this on a case by case basis. Why don't you give me some examples? This might also be informative for newbies.

Give you examples of what?

Examples of caches that are hidden in ammo cans, or examples of caches that are hidden on transformers?

Examples of bomb scares, or examples of electrocutions at transformers?

Examples of sweeping statements, or examples of specific cache hides that are unacceptable to you?

 

Before you accuse me of not knowing what the definition of "examples" is, and before Fizzy gives me a grammar lesson on the usage of the word "example", let me point out that I sincerely and honestly have no way to know what you're asking for examples of based on your limited word usage in your request.

[+TrailGators]

So an unacceptable cache hide in your opinion, is one that could be mistaken for a bomb.

I've said repeatedly that it depends on the case.

I wonder if Fizzy has any theories on debating tactics where a statement is quoted out of context and replied to, and the actual question asked is completely ignored?

 

He's probably fine with it.

 

Dang, there I go twisting words and parsing English incorrectly like I always seem to do. I must have run out of substantive arguments (like preparing to point out that ammo cans might be a bigger "bomb scare" problem than transformers are an "electrocution problem", but nobody seems to care about ammo cans).

I'm not going to make sweeping statements. I need specifics to answer this on a case by case basis. Why don't you give me some examples? This might also be informative for newbies.

Give you examples of what?

Examples of caches that are hidden in ammo cans, or examples of caches that are hidden on transformers?

Examples of bomb scares, or examples of electrocutions at transformers?

Examples of sweeping statements, or examples of specific cache hides that are unacceptable to you?

 

Before you accuse me of not knowing what the definition of "examples" is, and before Fizzy gives me a grammar lesson on the usage of the word "example", let me point out that I sincerely and honestly have no way to know what you're asking for examples of based on your limited word usage in your request.

I was asking you to give me an example of what you said. So can you give me an example of an 'unacceptable cache hide that could be (in your opinion) mistaken for a bomb?'

 

I can think of cases, but I'm curious to hear your opinion....

[+Renegade Knight]

...As a new geocacher I assumed that the forums would yield some relevant information about this activity. ...

 

The forums are just choke full of useful information. Like everthing there is some controversy. Much of that stems from opinions. Opinions are best taken in their larger context though that takes a lot of reading.

 

A lot of us debate the fringes. We debate because we like it. I call it the fringes because that's where we disagree. Not in the middle. But since the middle is boring when it comes to a debate we throw out the answer and move on to the real action.

 

Should a cache be placed in a fake electrical box that you can buy at home depot becaues some goober might later try to open a real one because they once found a fake one? That's the fringe.

 

Had you asked "can I use a fake electrical box to make a cache" most of us would say. "Sure, just make sure that where you attach it has the permission of the owner". A few would go on to say, "Mark the box so a cacher would know it's a cache. You can use the GC number or maybe the Gx logo, or GC.com logo or even a "Property of Geocachers.Inc" fake ownership tag."

 

After that maybe it would find some room for a good debate. However even then the answers are normally there to be found.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

BTW, during my lunch hour just now I found a magnetic hide a key on one of those big green transformers. Surprisingly I lived to tell the tale.

 

Yes, but now you've been exposed to PCB's.

[+TrailGators]

...As a new geocacher I assumed that the forums would yield some relevant information about this activity. ...

 

The forums are just choke full of useful information. Like everthing there is some controversy. Much of that stems from opinions. Opinions are best taken in their larger context though that takes a lot of reading.

 

A lot of us debate the fringes. We debate because we like it. I call it the fringes because that's where we disagree. Not in the middle. But since the middle is boring when it comes to a debate we throw out the answer and move on to the real action.

 

Should a cache be placed in a fake electrical box that you can buy at home depot becaues some goober might later try to open a real one because they once found a fake one? That's the fringe.

 

Had you asked "can I use a fake electrical box to make a cache" most of us would say. "Sure, just make sure that where you attach it has the permission of the owner". A few would go on to say, "Mark the box so a cacher would know it's a cache. You can use the GC number or maybe the Gx logo, or GC.com logo or even a "Property of Geocachers.Inc" fake ownership tag."

 

After that maybe it would find some room for a good debate. However even then the answers are normally there to be found.

That was a good post RK and I agree. If the topic was to give examples of poor choices for cache hides newbies might get some better info. My advice for newbies would be "when in doubt, err on the side of caution." Placing an unmarked cache that looks a lot a pipe bomb near an old folks home or a school would be a couple examples of poor choices IMHO. Edited January 5, 2009 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think you mean due diligence. Like I said before we would need a specific case to discuss and prove that. I am just asserting that such a case could exist and that things are not black and white.

 

I am also asserting that:

1) Hiders should always think before they place a cache.

2) Seekers should also assume that #1 doesn't always happen.

3) If we all try to do #1 and #2 then we will all be better off.

 

Off the top of my head due dillegence is doing your homework. If can be part of your duty of care or something you do even when you have none. For example a day care required to do a background check when hiring a new employee would be doing their 'due dilegence' when they do this. It's a subset of the duty of care. It would also kick in other situations. Another example is you want to invest in some real estate. If you do your due diligece as a potential buyer you can either make a great buy on a brownfield property or...get stuck with one that is worthless for the purpose you had in mind.

 

As for your 3 points. Yes, Yes, and Hell Yes.

[+TrailGators]

...I think you mean due diligence. Like I said before we would need a specific case to discuss and prove that. I am just asserting that such a case could exist and that things are not black and white.

 

I am also asserting that:

1) Hiders should always think before they place a cache.

2) Seekers should also assume that #1 doesn't always happen.

3) If we all try to do #1 and #2 then we will all be better off.

 

Off the top of my head due diligence is doing your homework. If can be part of your duty of care or something you do even when you have none. For example a day care required to do a background check when hiring a new employee would be doing their 'due diligence' when they do this. It's a subset of the duty of care. It would also kick in other situations. Another example is you want to invest in some real estate. If you do your due diligence as a potential buyer you can either make a great buy on a brownfield property or...get stuck with one that is worthless for the purpose you had in mind.

 

As for your 3 points. Yes, Yes, and Hell Yes.

Thanks RK. I learned something today about Duty of Care.

[+Rockin Roddy]

...As a new geocacher I assumed that the forums would yield some relevant information about this activity. ...

 

The forums are just choke full of useful information. Like everthing there is some controversy. Much of that stems from opinions. Opinions are best taken in their larger context though that takes a lot of reading.

 

A lot of us debate the fringes. We debate because we like it. I call it the fringes because that's where we disagree. Not in the middle. But since the middle is boring when it comes to a debate we throw out the answer and move on to the real action.

 

Should a cache be placed in a fake electrical box that you can buy at home depot becaues some goober might later try to open a real one because they once found a fake one? That's the fringe.

 

Had you asked "can I use a fake electrical box to make a cache" most of us would say. "Sure, just make sure that where you attach it has the permission of the owner". A few would go on to say, "Mark the box so a cacher would know it's a cache. You can use the GC number or maybe the Gx logo, or GC.com logo or even a "Property of Geocachers.Inc" fake ownership tag."

 

After that maybe it would find some room for a good debate. However even then the answers are normally there to be found.

That was a good post RK and I agree. If the topic was to give examples of poor choices for cache hides newbies might get some better info. My advice for newbies would be "when in doubt, err on the side of caution." Placing an unmarked cache that looks a lot a pipe bomb near an old folks home or a school would be a couple examples of poor choices IMHO.

 

I like the idea of marking a cache of this type as you said, I'd like to see this done. I know most won't because of the 'WOW" factor, but I do think this would be a good way to go!

[+ImaMystic]

 

The forums are just choke full of useful information. Like everthing there is some controversy. Much of that stems from opinions. Opinions are best taken in their larger context though that takes a lot of reading.

 

A lot of us debate the fringes. We debate because we like it. I call it the fringes because that's where we disagree. Not in the middle. But since the middle is boring when it comes to a debate we throw out the answer and move on to the real action.

 

 

Thank you for that post RK ... it explains the fringe debate.

I did glean a few ideas from this thread: I won't place anything anywhere anytime near any electrical equipment and I will always follow the guidelines and the reviewer will either pass my idea or not.

Happy Caching

[+edscott]

Many have described the act of placing a cache on an electrical box as "negligent" on the part of the hider. Many have pointed out that if the cache didn’t entice cachers to visit the electrical box, then seekers wouldn't be exposed to the hazard. This seems to be the crux of the negligence argument.

 

Electrical boxes present a safety hazard, potentially fatal. Yet the risk of electrocution is extremely low. That much, at least, does not appear to be in dispute.

 

But consider that food poisoning also presents a health hazard, also potentially fatal. Yet the risk of food poisoning is also extremely low.

 

This is the argument I keep hearing: If a cache hider places a cache anywhere on, or even near, an electrical box, then not only is the cache seeker completely blameless for any action he chooses to take involving tampering with said equipment, but the hider himself must be considered negligent for enticing seekers near the electrical box and thereby exposing seekers to the threat of invisible and extremely unlikely yet potentially fatal electrocution.

 

By the same reasoning, then: If a cache hider places a cache anywhere on, or even near, a restaurant building, then not only is the cache seeker completely blameless for any bellyaches resulting from any restaurant food he chooses to eat, but the hider himself must be considered negligent for enticing seekers near the restaurant and thereby exposing seekers to the threat of invisible and extremely unlikely yet potentially fatal food poisoning.

 

Where, then, is the outcry against caches which entice cachers into the vicinity of restaurants?

 

you eat caches?

[+Moose Mob]

There is far too much nitpicking on specific caches going on here. It is distracting from the bigger picture. If you want to quibble about one particvular type of hide, start a thread or revive an old thread about it. At the moment the arguemnent you folks are having is getting really really old. If I need to get people off the forums for a few days to get this back on track, I will do so.

Thank you.

[Clan Riffster]

There is far too much nitpicking on specific caches going on here.

Thanx Moose!

To address the basic question: In this instance, the thread title asks for our opinions regarding unacceptable cache hides. For the purpose of this thread, I'll operate under the assumption that the OP is wondering what kinds of hides we, as a team account, refuse to hide, and what kind of caches we, as individual members of a team account, refuse to hunt.

 

For the first half of my presumption, we won't knowingly hide any cache that violates the current guidelines. To expand on this, we won't knowingly keep a cache active that violates a future guideline. If I had a cache hidden on an electrical transformer, and Groundspeak created a new guideline prohibiting future publications of such caches, rather than let mine be grandfathered, I would archive it. I guess an exception to this would be the interpretation of cache types, as I wouldn't change an existing regular to a puzzle, (etc), just because the new guideline might designate it as such. That would tamper with people's stats. What else won't we hide? Any cache which, by our entirely biased standards, is void of creativity. I have rather inflated requirements for any cache that bears our moniker. During one of our hunts, you might experience any number of real or imagined dangers, of various degrees. At the very least, you will walk, (limp?), away entertained.

 

For the second half of my presumption: What won't we hunt? My wife and I are very different when it comes to cache preference. My favorite hunts put me nipple deep in a swamp, at night, nose to nose with critters who don't care that I am at the top of the food chain. Her favorite hunts are in pleasant, manicured parks. Give her a film canister at the base of a park entrance sign, 10' from our car and she's as happy as a hamster, while my entertainment level drops down close to zero. After 20 years of marriage, I still enjoy her company, so I derive my pleasure from simply spending time with her, focusing less on the actual caches we find.

 

So, what cache hides are unacceptable to the Riffster Clan? Not many.

[+BlueDeuce]

In this instance, the thread title asks for our opinions regarding unacceptable cache hides.

 

I run questionable caches past my local reviewer. It's the only way you're going to address the issue anyway.

 

I have also learned that I shouldn't be the one quoting guidelines.

 

That's about it.

Edited January 6, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+bflentje]

As a hider, I can't divulge anything that would get me in hot water. On the other hand, as a seeker of caches, I'll do anything and go anywhere. I'd even lift a skirt to find a cache.

[+TrailGators]

There is far too much nitpicking on specific caches going on here.

Thanx Moose!

To address the basic question: In this instance, the thread title asks for our opinions regarding unacceptable cache hides. For the purpose of this thread, I'll operate under the assumption that the OP is wondering what kinds of hides we, as a team account, refuse to hide, and what kind of caches we, as individual members of a team account, refuse to hunt.

 

For the first half of my presumption, we won't knowingly hide any cache that violates the current guidelines. To expand on this, we won't knowingly keep a cache active that violates a future guideline. If I had a cache hidden on an electrical transformer, and Groundspeak created a new guideline prohibiting future publications of such caches, rather than let mine be grandfathered, I would archive it. I guess an exception to this would be the interpretation of cache types, as I wouldn't change an existing regular to a puzzle, (etc), just because the new guideline might designate it as such. That would tamper with people's stats. What else won't we hide? Any cache which, by our entirely biased standards, is void of creativity. I have rather inflated requirements for any cache that bears our moniker. During one of our hunts, you might experience any number of real or imagined dangers, of various degrees. At the very least, you will walk, (limp?), away entertained.

 

For the second half of my presumption: What won't we hunt? My wife and I are very different when it comes to cache preference. My favorite hunts put me nipple deep in a swamp, at night, nose to nose with critters who don't care that I am at the top of the food chain. Her favorite hunts are in pleasant, manicured parks. Give her a film canister at the base of a park entrance sign, 10' from our car and she's as happy as a hamster, while my entertainment level drops down close to zero. After 20 years of marriage, I still enjoy her company, so I derive my pleasure from simply spending time with her, focusing less on the actual caches we find.

 

So, what cache hides are unacceptable to the Riffster Clan? Not many.

CR, I honestly would do many more types of caches if I could get my wife interested and she happened to like the kinds of caches that I don't care for. However, my wife is more finicky than I am. So she never goes caching with me. You are a lucky man! However, I think the OP was interested in hearing our opinions on which types of caches are poor ideas because of some potential hazard. At least that's the way I read this:

I received an interesting post on my blog yesterday from a cacher who did not think placing a cache so close to an electrical box was such a good idea. I can completely see his point to a degree but on the other hand did not think of it as a major deal. There have in the past been other forum posts where people have voiced displeasure of using electrical boxes and such (real or fake) as cache hosts in any way.

 

My question to you is what do you feel is not acceptable as a cache hide and why?

Maybe we can see some patterns of what people really do not like to look for when caching.

 

***Note this discussion does not have to partain to just electrical hosts...-HHH

 

I think this blog does a great job at explaining why some caches placed "on or around electrical equipment" are are bad idea.

Edited January 6, 2009 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

For the purpose of this thread, I'll operate under the assumption that the OP is wondering what kinds of hides we, as a team account, refuse to hide, and what kind of caches we, as individual members of a team account, refuse to hunt.

Oh, good one! I like what you've done here. Allow me to chime in with mine too.

 

I totally agree with Clan Riffster's posts.

 

As for what I refuse to hide... I have taken pride in hiding caches that I think have more to them than just a cache for the sake of there being a cache, so I won't go put a cache of any size in a place that doesn't have one just because I have a container and the place is available. There has to be more to it for me to hide one. I've gotten an award from the GGA for one of my caches, and I've gotten lots of good logs and in person praises on the rest. My one LPC was hidden back when I'd hidden a few at the center of some Zip codes, and that was the closest place, but even that one had something more to it than mearly another smiley for someone. These standards I hold only to myself.

 

As for what I refuse to hunt, nothing within the guidelines. Just because I hold myself to high standards in my hides doesn't mean that I demand, or expect, the same from anyone else. This is easy to do since I've enjoyed (to some degree) every cache I've found so far. I'm able to honestly be grateful for every cache hidden in which I've tried to find. The ones I can't hunt because of time, weather, etc. are perfectly acceptable on another day when I do have the time, or better weather, or I'm dressed for the hunt, etc. So far I haven't found a cache that I knew was hidden against the guidelines. However, if I drive up to a cache and it's obviously inside a fenced off area with No Trespassing signs, I'll skip it, and probably report it as questionable.