Addendum to guidelines

[+Knight2000]

I would like to ask for an addition to the geocache guidelines.

 

Geocaches that or disguised as or on electrical equipment should not be allowed. We should not have to search around utility meters or be prying behind fake electrical components. Anyone who know anything about electricity can vouch for how dangerous it is.

 

I know that geocaching can be dangerous but this could easily be avoided. This is an accident waiting to happen. I'm a relative geocaching newbie and I have found many like this.

 

It's not that I don't like the hides. I had bought materials to put some out myself before I really thought about it. It's just not worth it.

 

Do you agree?

 

-I see i misspelled addendum and i can't edit it.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Knight2000

[+mtn-man]

-I see i misspelled addendum and i can't edit it.

You never know when a nice moderator might help you out, eh?

[hoyshnin]

I would like to ask for an addition to the geocache guidelines.

 

Geocaches that or disguised as or on electrical equipment should not be allowed. We should not have to search around utility meters or be prying behind fake electrical components. Anyone who know anything about electricity can vouch for how dangerous it is.

 

I know that geocaching can be dangerous but this could easily be avoided. This is an accident waiting to happen. I'm a relative geocaching newbie and I have found many like this.

 

It's not that I don't like the hides. I had bought materials to put some out myself before I really thought about it. It's just not worth it.

 

Do you agree?

 

-I see i misspelled addendum and i can't edit it.

 

I agree. Some of the best camoed caches I've found have been on electrical equipment, but they always worry me. I think this would be a good additional guideline.

[AZcachemeister]

Hmmm, tough call.

I have seen threads before exclaiming the dangers of altoids tins attached to ground-mounted transformers (the normal type of transformers here in AZ), but I haven't seen any mention of cachers actually being injured or killed by such a hide.

 

So, are you only concerned with caches that LOOK like junction boxes, disconnect switches, or weatherproof outlets...or are you concerned with hides merely attached to live electrical equipment?

 

If the former, most of those stand out (and are actually rediculously obvious) to someone actually LOOKING for a cache.

 

If the latter, this would eliminate 30-50% of caches in AZ, and would certainly eliminate all the lamp-skirt micro angst nationwide, since a lamp-pole is electrical, isn't it?

[+Knight2000]

I think the first thing is that caches shouldn't be disguised as electrical components like junction boxes and electrical outlet covers.

 

There is going to have to be a fine line.

 

I haven't seen any LPC's where the caches are by wires. Sure they are inside the pole, but no one tries to go in there. (Do they? )

[+Isonzo Karst]

How about an addendum:

players who find caches on private property where they think it unlikely to impossible that there is permission: 1) don't commit what they believe is trespass

2) contact the cache owner and ask about permission

3) if there's no answer from the cache owner, or no adequate answer, log a Needs Archived

 

This covers caches on live electrical equipment plus boatloads of other poorly placed caches.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I would like to ask for an addition to the geocache guidelines.

 

Geocaches that or disguised as or on electrical equipment should not be allowed. We should not have to search around utility meters or be prying behind fake electrical components. Anyone who know anything about electricity can vouch for how dangerous it is.

 

I know that geocaching can be dangerous but this could easily be avoided. This is an accident waiting to happen. I'm a relative geocaching newbie and I have found many like this.

 

It's not that I don't like the hides. I had bought materials to put some out myself before I really thought about it. It's just not worth it.

 

Do you agree?

 

-I see i misspelled addendum and i can't edit it.

I dont see it, spell out the danger for me please.

The danger that would fall outside of using common sense that is.

 

If somebody is dumb enough to use a hair dryer in the shower they probably cant/wouldn't read the label.

[+beejay&esskay]

 

I haven't seen any LPC's where the caches are by wires. Sure they are inside the pole, but no one tries to go in there. (Do they? )

 

 

I know of a couple of LPCs which went missing and several cachers searched by the wires (because of removed access plates.)

 

The problem with the fake electrical components is that they encourage behavior that could be dangerous if it's not a cache. They are clever, sometimes they are even humorous (when in a place that couldn't possibly be wired for electricity) but I'm always a little troubled by them.

 

I found a cache a few days tucked in a sleeve in a "DANGER: RISK OF ELECTRICAL SHOCK" magnetic sign placed on real electrical equipment at the rear of a store. Clever, but a little worrying.

Edited October 3, 2009 by beejay&esskay

[+Knight2000]

I dont see it, spell out the danger for me please.

The danger that would fall outside of using common sense that is.

 

If somebody is dumb enough to use a hair dryer in the shower they probably cant/wouldn't read the label.

When the hider already disguises the cache as an electrical box, it kind of takes the common sense out of it. Unless you expect that hiders won't look in these places. They already do as there are many hides like this. This may be a geocache today and it may be a live j-box tomorrow.

 

People without a knowledge of electricity will view it exactly like you. They don't see the danger.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I dont see it, spell out the danger for me please.

The danger that would fall outside of using common sense that is.

 

If somebody is dumb enough to use a hair dryer in the shower they probably cant/wouldn't read the label.

When the hider already disguises the cache as an electrical box, it kind of takes the common sense out of it. Unless you expect that hiders won't look in these places. They already do as there are many hides like this. This may be a geocache today and it may be a live j-box tomorrow.

 

People without a knowledge of electricity will view it exactly like you. They don't see the danger.

Having performed with a Tesla Coil I know very well the dangers electricity poses.

I don't see the danger for a person exhibiting a modicum of common sense.

What you are saying is "It is our responsibility to protect stupid people from themselves"

Are you going to ban all caches that require a 500 foot free climb because it encourages people to knowingly risk themselves?

There are some wise words all over this forum "You don't have to do the cache"

[+Knight2000]

If a cache is up a tree, on a cliff or otherwise dangerous area you can easily walk away because you know. Caches disguised as electrical components aren't labeled in this way. It's not always obvious. (To people that don't know this type of thing.)

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I'm not worried about the "danger" factor because lots of cache locations are "dangerous".

 

What worries me about "fake" electrical box caches is that they tend to encourage cachers to open up real electrical boxes. And then there is a great potential for the real electrical boxes to be damaged by the cachers.

 

In this line of thinking, I tend to agree that the fake electrical box caches are a bad idea.

[Keystone]

None of the Cache Listing Guidelines directly regulate "danger" for the reason of being dangerous. (Some do so as a byproduct of serving their intended purpose, such as the railroad guideline, which is based upon preventing trespassing.)

 

With this proposed guideline, as a volunteer cache reviewer I'd be responsible for making the requested safety determination. I wouldn't do this without having a long chat with Groundspeak and its insurance agent. I'd need to protect myself against the threat of liability for making a safety determination that later turned out to be incorrect.

 

I would quiz every hider about what type of container they used, and how it was concealed. I'd ask for photos of the cache in its hiding place. I'd ask a lot more questions about permission instead of making reasonable assumptions.

 

When average publication time slows to one week, I trust that Knight2000 will be my staunchest defender in the Forums.

[+Knight2000]

I'm not worried about the "danger" factor because lots of cache locations are "dangerous".

 

What worries me about "fake" electrical box caches is that they tend to encourage cachers to open up real electrical boxes. And then there is a great potential for the real electrical boxes to be damaged by the cachers.

 

In this line of thinking, I tend to agree that the fake electrical box caches are a bad idea.

Damaged boxes or damaged geocachers.

 

With this proposed guideline, as a volunteer cache reviewer I'd be responsible for making the requested safety determination.

I know you have a lot more authority on this matter (in more ways than one ) but I disagree. A reviewer can only see that the hider checked the box. It is common to find caches that violate guidelines but I am sure that a guideline of this sort would cut down on these type of hides.

 

You aren't fooling anyone Keystone. We all know that you will always get those caches published.

 

What would this guideline hurt? Would it do more harm than good?

[+tozainamboku]

One method of camouflage is to make what you are hiding look like something that belongs there; whether using a electrical plate or junction box, a sprinkler, PVC pipe, or fake rocks, the hider is using disguise to camouflage the cache and protect it from muggles who make a casual observation of an area. Geocachers looking for the cache on the the other hand do a more thorough search. This can be both good an bad. It is bad because a geocacher is likely to examine a real item which might have inherent dangers or might be subject to being damaged. Good in that geocachers quickly develop ways to tell the real objects from the cache. Is the plate or junction box not in a location where you would expected it? Is the sprinkler head in a place where you wouldn't expect a sprinkler. Is the design or model different from others in the area? Its it attached with magnets or otherwise easily removable? Does the paint job match? Is there a sticker that says "Geocache" on it? There should be no reason for geocacher to open up or remove any real equipment. Generally a gentle tug on a suspicious looking junction box would tell you right away if it is fake or real. I would hate to see changes to guidelines that prohibit using any particular kind of camouflage. If we start with electrical plates and junction boxes it will then move to sprinklers and PVC pipe, and finally an argument will be made against fake rocks which encourage geocachers to move real rocks

What the guideline may need a stronger statement to replace that you not deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method. Not deface should mean not only that you don't deface or damage property but that you don't interfere with its safe and proper usage as well. In the case of electrical and other similar equipment it should be made clear that you should never remove access panels or interfere in anyway with safety systems associated with these items. It may also be the case that the guidelines should stress that permission is required to place caches on electric company (and other utility's) equipment.

[+KBI]

I'm not worried about the "danger" factor because lots of cache locations are "dangerous".

 

What worries me about "fake" electrical box caches is that they tend to encourage cachers to open up real electrical boxes. And then there is a great potential for the real electrical boxes to be damaged by the cachers.

 

In this line of thinking, I tend to agree that the fake electrical box caches are a bad idea.

Prohibiting fake electrical box caches won’t stop cachers from inspecting real electrical boxes any more that prohibiting fake sprinkler head caches will stop cachers from inspecting real sprinkler heads.

 

A determined cache seeker will pursue any possibility. It is up to the individual seeker to use his/her own common sense.

 

I agree with Keystone. If Groundspeak ever decides to start judging which caches are too dangerous for seekers and which ones are adequately safe, they will be opening themselves up to all kinds of trouble.

 

Hence the disclaimer.

 

The disclaimer really ought to cover it. If the disclaimer doesn't solve the problem, the proposed guideline addendum certainly won't. If a person won’t read the disclaimer, then why would we expect him to read a detail buried in the guidelines?

 

If a cacher hurts himself doing something stupid, it’s his own fault.

Edited October 3, 2009 by KBI

[+ventura_kids]

I've found a cache inside a live electrical disconnect switch box...with live wires. I returned the cache to the OUTside of the box and sent an email to the owner to let him know that 480 volts are on the upper screw terminals in that box.

Under the current NFPA and NEC electrical code, most metal equipment located in the public realm SHOULD be safe enough to lean up against (due to grounding requirements). If there is an open box or cover nearby with wiring inside, then I would stay away.

 

I've talked with a gardener who was once again repairing the sprinklers around an area where a cache (disguised as a sprinkler) was located. I moved the cache to the non-private property side of the fence and logged the Better Corrected coords. I also emailed the owner and let him know the damage that was being done.

In another area, a geocache that was camoflauged as a sprinkler....was repaired by the gardener. He was assigned the task to fix that sprinkler over there. He removed the cache and logsheet from the inside, and ran a water supply pipe to the sprinkler. Imagine the cache owners surprise when he checked the cache.

 

In my opinion..... guidelines should only limit those areas where an issue occurs. Do you know of an injured cacher?

Once we evolve the guidelines into rules, and then add a rule for each and every incident, the hobby will slowly eliminate itself.

[+ventura_kids]

I'm not worried about the "danger" factor because lots of cache locations are "dangerous".

 

What worries me about "fake" electrical box caches is that they tend to encourage cachers to open up real electrical boxes. And then there is a great potential for the real electrical boxes to be damaged by the cachers.

 

In this line of thinking, I tend to agree that the fake electrical box caches are a bad idea.

Prohibiting fake electrical box caches won’t stop cachers from inspecting real electrical boxes any more that prohibiting fake sprinkler head caches will stop cachers from inspecting real sprinkler heads.

 

A determined cache seeker will pursue any possibility. It is up to the individual seeker to use his/her own common sense.

 

I agree with Keystone. If Groundspeak ever decides to start judging which caches are too dangerous for seekers and which ones are adequately safe, they will be opening themselves up to all kinds of trouble.

 

Hence the disclaimer.

 

The disclaimer really ought to cover it. If the disclaimer doesn't solve the problem, the proposed guideline addendum certainly won't. If a person won’t read the disclaimer, then why would we expect him to read a detail buried in the guidelines?

 

If a cacher hurts himself doing something stupid, it’s his own fault.

 

I never knew we had guidelines , and now there's a disclaimer?

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm not worried about the "danger" factor because lots of cache locations are "dangerous".

 

What worries me about "fake" electrical box caches is that they tend to encourage cachers to open up real electrical boxes. And then there is a great potential for the real electrical boxes to be damaged by the cachers.

 

In this line of thinking, I tend to agree that the fake electrical box caches are a bad idea.

In terms of damaging property I can agree, that would be vandalism.

 

What would this guideline hurt? Would it do more harm than good?

Depends on how you quantify harm and I see several ways.

 

Liability is a nasty thing to mess with.

I can go to a tattoo shop and sign all the wavers of liability forms they want but the truth is if I get sick or hospitalized because of them those wavers don't mean spit.

The reasoning is they knew X could happen and invested effort in protecting themselves when that effort would have been better served protecting the clientele from X.

If GS says "no hides in/on/near electrical equipment" then they are accepting the potential.

The best thing for you as an individual would be to simply look at it as no trespassing and walk away.

 

I also see harm in simply taking away personal responsibility. Take a look around, think way back, you'll see it has been happening in the Good 'Ol U.S. of A. for years.

• There once was an Israeli woman who sued a TV station for making an inaccurate weather prediction. The woman claimed that the forecast caused her to dress lightly. Then it rained, she got the flu, missed a week of work, and had to buy medication. She also claimed it caused her stress. She sued for $1,000 – and won.
  
• Look up Stella Liebeck. Can I have that lawsuit with 3 lumps and two creams?
  
• Cleanthi Peters who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios sued for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.
  
• I remember something about a woman that tried to commit suicide by laying on subway tracks, she survived, sued and won.
  

The more you take away personal responsibility the more people expect to be absolved of it.

[GOF and Bacall]

I would like to ask for an addition to the geocache guidelines.

 

Geocaches that or disguised as or on electrical equipment should not be allowed. We should not have to search around utility meters or be prying behind fake electrical components. Anyone who know anything about electricity can vouch for how dangerous it is.

 

I know that geocaching can be dangerous but this could easily be avoided. This is an accident waiting to happen. I'm a relative geocaching newbie and I have found many like this.

 

It's not that I don't like the hides. I had bought materials to put some out myself before I really thought about it. It's just not worth it.

 

Do you agree?

 

-I see i misspelled addendum and i can't edit it.

Bold added to highlight a particular sentence.

 

It seems to me that if you feel they are so wrong to hide you should stop encouraging them by logging such finds. I do thank you for being so concerned about my safety when you are obviously so cavalier about your own.

[+Shop99er]

I would like to ask for an addition to the geocache guidelines.

 

Geocaches that or disguised as or on electrical equipment should not be allowed. We should not have to search around utility meters or be prying behind fake electrical components. Anyone who know anything about electricity can vouch for how dangerous it is.

 

Having been an Electrician (Industrial, Residental, Marine) for 35 years, I know how dangerous electricity CAN be. The true danger is when people start fooling around where they shouldn't be. Most electrical shocks, and electrocutions (yes, they are different) are caused by people being where they shouldn't be, or doing something that they have no knowledge of to protect them.

 

That being said, I do not agree with this idea. No where does it say you "should" be mucking around electrical components. That is your choice, and it is my choice. Since I know what I'm doing, I have no problem with it.

 

I do have a problem with "legislated safety," though. If you're not comfortable with a hide, then stay away from it. But do not ask to have my fun taken away, just because you don't like it. Go look somewhere else, and leave these hide alone.

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

agree with earlier cacher who states that most can be determined by a little tug or push. Most of the fake covers I have found have always been magnetic. All you need to do is give them a little bump with your fingernail and see if it moves. Those caches which would require screws to be removed at an electircal place would not be appropiate, but then again, Ithink that comes down to common sense and judgement.

 

Plus, if you don't feel something might not be safe, then walk away. There are other caches and you don't need to have that one.

[+StarBrand]

I've no serious problem with such hides as long as the cache stands out from the "real" equipment - at least to Geocachers. And I mean very obvious to geocachers.

[knowschad]

Frankly, I am very surprised that it is you that are suggesting this. I thought that we were pretty much in agreement about such things. No... I disagree. I do not believe that geocaching the organization should become involved in deciding what caches are too dangerous and what are not.

 

 

The railroad limitations, as I'm sure you know, are based upon trespassing laws, not danger. The school guidelines are there to protect non-cachers, not cachers.

 

 

We have no other guidelines that I can think of that are there to protect the geocache FINDERS from dangerous situations. We can have caches that require us to rappel down a cliff. We can have caches that require us to take a kayak up raging river currents to an old bridge abutment and figure out how to safely scale the bugger. I'm sure we have caches near volcanos, earthquakes, and I know that we had one in a guerilla war zone until recently.

 

 

And you want to protect cachers from electrical boxes? If you don't know how to rappel... don't even think about buying the gear. Get my drift? Where does it end?

Edited October 4, 2009 by knowschad

[+Knight2000]

I'm a relative geocaching newbie and I have found many like this.

Bold added to highlight a particular sentence.

 

It seems to me that if you feel they are so wrong to hide you should stop encouraging them by logging such finds. I do thank you for being so concerned about my safety when you are obviously so cavalier about your own.

In my area these aren't very common. I have seen maybe 6 in my 600 some finds. My not logging a find isn't going to stop anything.

 

I don't personally have a problem with them. I certainly do not approve as it encourages searching in these areas. Common sense isn't common and how often have you seen items damaged from cachers searching. Sometimes you can see it in j-boxes and similar.

 

I don't want to protect cachers from electrical devices so much as I want to know that I shouldn't have to look around them as I don't have to dig. (Usually )

 

I suppose I can see what Keystone is saying. I'm bored with this subject already. Back to your regularly scheduled "can I claim this FTF" thread.

[+traildad]

I'm a relative geocaching newbie and I have found many like this.

Bold added to highlight a particular sentence.

 

It seems to me that if you feel they are so wrong to hide you should stop encouraging them by logging such finds. I do thank you for being so concerned about my safety when you are obviously so cavalier about your own.

In my area these aren't very common. I have seen maybe 6 in my 600 some finds. My not logging a find isn't going to stop anything.

 

I don't personally have a problem with them. I certainly do not approve as it encourages searching in these areas. Common sense isn't common and how often have you seen items damaged from cachers searching. Sometimes you can see it in j-boxes and similar.

 

I don't want to protect cachers from electrical devices so much as I want to know that I shouldn't have to look around them as I don't have to dig. (Usually )

 

I suppose I can see what Keystone is saying. I'm bored with this subject already. Back to your regularly scheduled "can I claim this FTF" thread.

At least twice you have said something to the effect that you shouldn't "have" to look around electrical equipment. If someone published a cache that seemed to be in the middle of the busiest freeway in your area would you walk out there because you "had" to? Please remove all these dangerous caches because I am required to find all caches in my area and I don't want to get hurt.

[+Knight2000]

Let me rephrase.

 

I know when I go geocaching that I won't need a shovel because I know I won't have to dig to make a find. (U.S. only )

 

Before I go to look for a cache I don't know if it will be the type of hide I was talking about. It's not like I can know beforehand and decide to skip it.

 

There's quite a difference between the two.

 

I am not a radius slave so I don't have to find any of them.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Knight2000

[+Chrysalides]

I don't agree. Having such a guideline would eventually lead to a set of geocaching guidelines as thick as the U.S. tax code. What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

Edited October 4, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+AstroDav]

I wouldn't agree to enforcing a guideline like this. If ANYTHING is done, then it should only be for a "NOTE: Don't Fool Around With Anything That Looks Like An Electrical Part" be placed on the cache-page. Then the cacher who is searching can make up his own mind whether he wants to hunt the cache.

 

The reason I wouldn't agree to this is that just this one simple "guideline" opens up a whole avenue for OTHER guidelines.

 

Rule 1 - Guidelines for off-limit caches:

a - No cache may be hid near a cliff. Somebody could fall.

b - No cache may be hid in the woods. Somebody could get snake-bit.

c - No cache may be hid near water. Somebody could drown.

d - No cache may be hid within 150 feet of a road. Somebody could get ran over.

e - No cache may be hid on top of a steep hill. Somebody could have a heart-attack during the climb.

f - etc., etc., etc.

 

I can promise you that SOMEONE out there feels just as strongly about the above examples as the OP does about the electrical one. So ask yourself, if a "No Electrical Related Caches"guideline was added....would you ALSO agree for each of he above to be enforced....along with a myriad others which people are scared of? I'm terrified of spiders, so I could add "g"..."No caches around spider webs. Some are poisonous"

 

Where would it stop? DON'T START ASKING FOR FURTHER RESTRICTIONS!!! You'll soon get them & then you may wish you hadn't. And it's usually a LOT harder to repeal a decision than to place it into effect.

 

I say cachers should use their God-given common sense to keep them out of danger. If they don't possess that (and no, I'm not implying anything or trying to insult anyone), then Geo-Caching is most likely not the sport for them. We encounter dangers every time we go out in the field to hunt. Something as simple as Poison Ivy or a Red Wasp can be as deadly as electricity to someone who is allergic to them. (Oops...there's "h" & "i"....no caches around PI or wasps)

 

Leave the rules as they are & if the electrical looking caches worry you.....don't hunt them. Problem solved.

 

Just to add a bit of "qualification" to my opinion. I'm a Master Electrician & have been for over 10 years. Prior to that, I worked as a Meter Serviceman with a major multi-state electrical utility for 5 years. I know the dangers of electricity as good as anyone in the world, better than most. And not to sound self-centered or anything, but I also realize that the majority of people DON'T fully understand how electricity operates & the little pecularities which can make it finicky.

 

Yet, even with that, I don't think Geo-Caching needs an "electrical clause" added.

Edited October 4, 2009 by astrodav

[+Knight2000]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

 

Fugedabowdid.

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

 

Fugedabowdid.

 

What would make it difficult? You don't feel it's a safe situation once you get to GZ, you walk away.

 

Get there, get out look around..."Oh, it's not in the bush...not behind that pipe over here...I guess it could possibly be that plate cover on the electrical box..." At that point you have a choice, try to move the plate or walk away. You have to judge for yourself and if you don't feel that it is safe, then don't do it. The only thing that would make it difficult is your own greed for not wanting to have a DNF and if that drives you then ultimately it isn't going to matter if it is something electrical or some other situation, you are going to put yourself at risk no matter what.

 

All in all, it should be up to individual cachers, no one makes us search in certain areas for certain things...

[+Knight2000]

I must sound like Charlie Browns teacher. This is getting redundant.

[+Vater_Araignee]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

 

Fugedabowdid.

I concur, because I find it oh so imposable to walk away from a cache I am completely unprepared for.

Why I remember this one time I went after a hydro cache off one of the western central pylons at the Mackinaw Bridge. I got above GZ and started ranting that I should have been warned that I would need scuba gear, because I just couldn't walk away. I went back to shore, and returned with a big rock, tied it on, then jumped in. I was amazed at how accurate the coords where because I practically landed on the cache. Unfortunately I spent too long down there because the container had a pressure lock that couldn't be opened unless it was at one atmosphere or less. I ran out of air and died.

To bad the bridge museum burnt down, before it did you could see my name on the bridge fatality list.

 

Then there was this time a cache was located 400' down a cliff face. DANG IT! I'm only rated for a 150' free climb and return. Long story short, they still haven't found my body.

[+KBI]

I know when I go geocaching that I won't need a shovel because I know I won't have to dig to make a find.

Good point.

 

I see what you’re saying. You’re saying that if your proposal were adopted, you would know that any future cache you sought would be well away from any electrical equipment.

 

The first problem I see is that your premise is shaky. Folks bend the 'no buried caches' rule all the time. And whether or not the rule gets bent by the hider, many seekers will still dig whenever they think they might need to, which is apparently frequently.

 

The second problem is that the 'no buried caches' rule has been around for a long time, whereas the current guideline system – the one which effectively allows fake electrical boxes – is well established. How effective will your change really be? How long will it take until all cache hides become compliant with your new rule?

 

Thirdly: The more complicated the guidelines become, the less overall compliance there will be. Same as with the US income tax code. I say keep it simple instead.

 

And of course there is no getting around Keystone’s point. The day Groundspeak begins to implement the nanny state concept of protecting us from ourselves is the day the lawsuit/settlement/shutdown countdown begins.

[+L0ne.R]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

 

Fugedabowdid.

 

What would make it difficult? You don't feel it's a safe situation once you get to GZ, you walk away.

 

Get there, get out look around..."Oh, it's not in the bush...not behind that pipe over here...I guess it could possibly be that plate cover on the electrical box..." At that point you have a choice, try to move the plate or walk away.

 

Knight2000 is saying that he doesn't want to drive 10+ miles only to find it's an electric box that needs to be closely examined and poked and pried at to see if anything moves to reveal a cache. I agree.

 

I think the only way to deal with this, is not to walk away but to log the find or leave a note, in order to express concern. This will at least warn others and save them a wasted trip and maybe discourage the placement of more junction box caches.

[+Shop99er]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

 

Fugedabowdid.

 

What would make it difficult? You don't feel it's a safe situation once you get to GZ, you walk away.

 

Get there, get out look around..."Oh, it's not in the bush...not behind that pipe over here...I guess it could possibly be that plate cover on the electrical box..." At that point you have a choice, try to move the plate or walk away.

 

Knight2000 is saying that he doesn't want to drive 10+ miles only to find it's an electric box that needs to be closely examined and poked and pried at to see if anything moves to reveal a cache. I agree.

 

I think the only way to deal with this, is not to walk away but to log the find or leave a note, in order to express concern. This will at least warn others and save them a wasted trip and maybe discourage the placement of more junction box caches.

 

I've been less that thrilled to drive 10, 20, or more miles to find a lame hide, or to discover the cache went missing that morning.

 

Perhaps a warning note should be posted, or the CO should call every cacher within 50 miles when a cache is disabled/muggled.

 

The only way to deal with this is either don't hunt them if you have reason to believe it's "electrical," or walk away when you find it is. Leaving a note on the page would be tantamount to leaving a spoiler.

 

And there you would be again, taking my fun away.

[+Shop99er]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

 

Fugedabowdid.

I concur, because I find it oh so imposable to walk away from a cache I am completely unprepared for.

Why I remember this one time I went after a hydro cache off one of the western central pylons at the Mackinaw Bridge. I got above GZ and started ranting that I should have been warned that I would need scuba gear, because I just couldn't walk away. I went back to shore, and returned with a big rock, tied it on, then jumped in. I was amazed at how accurate the coords where because I practically landed on the cache. Unfortunately I spent too long down there because the container had a pressure lock that couldn't be opened unless it was at one atmosphere or less. I ran out of air and died.

To bad the bridge museum burnt down, before it did you could see my name on the bridge fatality list.

 

Then there was this time a cache was located 400' down a cliff face. DANG IT! I'm only rated for a 150' free climb and return. Long story short, they still haven't found my body.

 

[AZcachemeister]

I think the first thing is that caches shouldn't be disguised as electrical components like junction boxes and electrical outlet covers.

 

There is going to have to be a fine line.

 

I haven't seen any LPC's where the caches are by wires. Sure they are inside the pole, but no one tries to go in there. (Do they? )

 

I don't know if it was cachers or not, but I have seen more than a few loose access covers on lamp poles with caches under the skirt.

[+Don_J]

Let me rephrase.

 

I know when I go geocaching that I won't need a shovel because I know I won't have to dig to make a find. (U.S. only )

 

Before I go to look for a cache I don't know if it will be the type of hide I was talking about. It's not like I can know beforehand and decide to skip it.

 

There's quite a difference between the two.

 

I am not a radius slave so I don't have to find any of them.

 

In the same respect, I will no longer look for caches hidden in the lower frame of a coin operated newspaper stand. I simply do not like this type of hide. I personally think that I would be out of line to request that people tell me upfront that it is that type of hide, simply so I can save time. I would never even think of changing the guidelines and banning such hides because I simply don't like them. As far as danger, I had a potentially violent encounter while searching such a box. I have also encountered more than my fair share of black widow spiders.

 

It's the luck of the draw. If you pull up on a fake J-box hide, I suggest that you do what I do when I pull up on a newspaper hide, just drive on to the next one.

 

I'm pretty much the same way with ivy hides. I reached into an ivy hedge once and booted a rat in the butt. If he had been facing the other way, I probably would have had to go through the rabies shots.

 

(Edit for added content)

Edited October 4, 2009 by Don_J

[+W8TTS]

I don't know if it was cachers or not, but I have seen more than a few loose access covers on lamp poles with caches under the skirt.

We had one idiot here place a cache inside the connection opening on a lamp pole with a missing cover. As soon as a reviewer heard about it, it was Archived.

[knowschad]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

[ /quote]

 

Sure it is easy to walk away. You may have regreted made the drive, but that isn't the same as simply walking away once you saw what you were faced with.

 

 

Sounds more like you are asking for an attribute.

 

 

But more than anything... I'd be concerned about the slippery slope that "dangerous cache" takes us to. Where does it end?

[Mushtang]

But more than anything... I'd be concerned about the slippery slope that "dangerous cache" takes us to. Where does it end?

I totally agree here.

 

I don't think we've had a single instance where a geocacher was seriously injured by electricity while looking for a geocache in an electrical box. However, it wouldn't be too hard to find people that have gotten seriously hurt in their cars while on caching trips, so should we also add to the guidelines that we're not allowed to hide caches that people would drive to? Driving your car to a cache location is probably the most dangerous part of most cache hunts, even if they're hidden on transformers, lamp posts, etc.

[+L0ne.R]

But more than anything... I'd be concerned about the slippery slope that "dangerous cache" takes us to. Where does it end?

I totally agree here.

 

I don't think we've had a single instance where a geocacher was seriously injured by electricity while looking for a geocache in an electrical box.

 

I agree about the '"dangerous cache" slippery slope' thing. But what about the 'fooling with public utilities' thing?

[Mushtang]

But more than anything... I'd be concerned about the slippery slope that "dangerous cache" takes us to. Where does it end?

I totally agree here.

 

I don't think we've had a single instance where a geocacher was seriously injured by electricity while looking for a geocache in an electrical box.

I agree about the '"dangerous cache" slippery slope' thing. But what about the 'fooling with public utilities' thing?

What about the "be more specific with your question" thing?

 

But seriously, I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to ask.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Mushtang

[+Cherokee Bill]

I had a "flat stick-on mag" cache that was made to look like a simple set of "serial numbers", with a small log taped to the back. This cache was stuck on a LARGE telephone sub-panel. The cache page instructed folks that it was outside and that NO doors had to be opened. Man, folks had a heck of a time finding the cache, it wa evil

 

Well, a utility-worker e-mailed me (thru geocaching.com) to give me a friendly warning! Seems they are to notify "Homeland Security" DIRECTLY anytime they see anyone around any communication or power equipment. Seem fines are high, etc, etc.

 

Needless to say the cache was archived & removed. Just a warning! Things are touchy since 9/11.

[+Chrysalides]

I agree about the '"dangerous cache" slippery slope' thing. But what about the 'fooling with public utilities' thing?

Common sense should apply when it comes to hiding and searching.

 

Unfortunately, common sense doesn't appear to be all that common.

 

Still, I'm opposed to having specific clauses such as these in the guidelines.

[+ventura_kids]

Similar experience, different result.

We were searching at a transformer (big green) for a clever hide. A group of contractors were working on wiring up the nearby buildings, and were gathered at the next transformer over. They had a pile of blueprints spread out on top of the "dangerous" transformer. They yelled over to us and asked "What are you looking for?" I replied "We don't exactly know. Do you see anything around here that doesn't belong here?" One electrician yelled back "yeah, that number doesn't belong on that transformer." He was right. Logical, calm, safe, fun.

[+BlueDeuce]

gc.com has gone forth and back about caches simulating electrical equipment. I happen to agree with the initial premise - don't do it.

 

Yes people drive cars, scale down a cliffs, climb trees and hopefully they know their limitations. How do you teach someone that it's okay to access an electrical box?

 

Exactly how much common sense makes you an electrician.

 

My common sense says don't unscrew with anything that could kill me by touching it. Do the less sensible people a favor by not asking them to know better.

Edited October 6, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[Neath Worthies]

I've never seen such a cache over here in the UK but can I assume these fake electrical boxes are mounted on existing electricity poles or the suchlike? If so I'm surprised the owner of the pole has given their permission for the cache placer to use their equipment.

 

Surely if a reviewer suspects a cache doesn't have permission shouldn't they confirm it with the cache placer before publishing?

[+AstroDav]

What's wrong with walking away from a hide if you don't feel it is safe or something you enjoy?

I completely understand and agree. It is easy to walk away from a cache that you need scuba gear for because you know ahead of time.

 

You don't always know this about these types of hides so it isn't as easy to walk away since it isn't always clear that you need to walk away.

 

 

Here's another cure for that, much better in my opinion than putting an un-needed guideline into effect, potentially opening up the possibility of LOTS of additional guidelies in the future. It's a very simple one that I use quite often.

 

First, determine what type of cache or caches you WANT to find. Second, read the descriptions, hints, logs, attributes, & several other peces of information about the cache that is already available.

 

If, after doing that, the cache DOESN'T meet your requirements.....don't do it.

 

Sometimes I want to find Travel Bugs. If the cache doesn't list them, I don't hunt it.

 

Sometimes I want a very strenous work-out. If the cache ranks less than 4 on terrain, I don't hunt it.

 

Sometimes I want to find Multi's. If the cache doesn't specify it's a Multi, I don't hunt it.

 

Sometimes I want a very difficult challenge. If the cache ranks less than 4 on difficulty, I don't hunt it.

 

Sometimes I'm after pure numbers. If the cache is an "Unknown" size, over 200 feet from the road, or ranks over 2 on either parameter, I don't hunt it.

 

Using the information that is ALREADY available on 95% of caches, you can VERY easily determine whether or not you want to leave the house, drive to it, & hunt for the thing.

 

If the owner didn't supply enough information for your likings, or the information that IS supplied doesn't fit whatever options you personally prefer....LEAVE IT ALONE!!

 

I'd be willing to bet a significant amount that over 90% of the cachers here, who find a cache that doesn't satisfy their personal requirements for what they want to hunt, will ALSO find a cache which DOES meet those preferences, at a very similar distance from their home.....if they spend another 5 minutes searching.

 

Increasing guidelines for cache-hiding is a sure-fire way to take much of the pleasure out of BOTH hiding & hunting. Hiders will get fed up with having to jump through hoops just to place a perfectly harmless container in a perfectly harmless location, that they'll just give up trying. After a while of this, the hunters will feel the effects by not having as many caches to find.

 

There's already enough restrictions & guidelines for geocaching. If you don't believe me, try hiding one in the Ouachita Nat'l Forest. It's entirely possible & it DOES occur. But it MIGHT cost you over $50 per cache & often DOES take several months to ever get it permitted. One that I found just south of me very recently took a full FOUR months to ever get a permit for it....and it was less than 200 feet from a major road, NOT out in the middle of a forest. And since then, we've went from "State Highway or County Road R.O.W. okay", to "ALL caches adjacent to Nat'l Forest, even if within R.O.W.'s or on PRIVATE land, must have a Forest Service permit, or at the very least have an FS employee confirm that it ISN'T on their land".

 

Why the heck do you need the FS coming onto private property & stating, "Yeah, you own that, we don't". And guess how this mess started.....one single cacher decided he wanted a stricter guideline on FS caches. Well, he got it, and VERY few caches have been placed in those locations since. And I can promise you that, now since the guidelines have been strengthened, we'll NEVER see them go back to the easier, quicker, & just fine way it was done before.....at least not in the next couple years or so, if at all.

 

So what's the point of that factoid? We need to be working to make caching EASIER to enjoy....NOT recommending that stricter guidelines be placed on it, which will surely then lead to even more. Be VERY careful what you wish for....you just may get it, and I bet you won't enjoy it near as much as you thought you would.

 

Do those who are asking for this un-necessary guideline REALLY want to be told, a year from now, that their cache under a lamp-skirt won't be approved because it's too near electrical equipment.....or that their little container won't be approved because it "resembles a certain piece of metal" too much.

 

If you don't like them, don't hunt them....easy as that. But DON'T try to make it harder on those of us who DO hunt these types.....and have enough will-power to just walk away if a certain cache doesn't appeal to them.