Is this cache too dangerous?

[+bittsen]

Hell! Why not UPS ground? Chuck a couple of water bottles and a few twinkies in the box with him and he'll be fine.

True story...

When I was 10 or so I wanted to visit my grandparents. I actually did the research to see how much postage would cost to send myself the 2500 miles to their house.

I had it all worked out except for the bathroom.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If for anything this forum is predictable.

Some of the replies to my post are exactly what I expected.

It doesnt change the fact that just because you put a disclaimer does not get you a free pass at negligence.

 

Its one thing have a cache in a lamp post and another putting it in a place that is visibly dangerous and to not take the necessary steps to make it safe and a disclaimer is not enough.

 

Sooner or later someone will get hurt and take it to their lawyers and then it will not be a popcorn show... Its only a matter of time.

It's not a matter of time, it's happened often. Folks get hurt going after a cache, from my buddy who tripped and broke his shoulder reaching for a micro on a roadside guard rail to the cacher who fell off a cliff and died a few months ago.

 

The thing is, you asked a question... is it too dangerous.

 

We answered... overwhelmingly the answer was no it is not.

 

When 10 people give you the same answer then you really should accept it!

[+apyro]

If for anything this forum is predictable.

Some of the replies to my post are exactly what I expected.

It doesnt change the fact that just because you put a disclaimer does not get you a free pass at negligence.

 

Its one thing have a cache in a lamp post and another putting it in a place that is visibly dangerous and to not take the necessary steps to make it safe and a disclaimer is not enough.

 

Sooner or later someone will get hurt and take it to their lawyers and then it will not be a popcorn show... Its only a matter of time.

 

As was previously mentioned people die every year climbing Everest, or Sky diving, piloting their own plane or even riding a motorcycle! People do many dangerous things because they enjoy it. It's part of having free will. We can't keep people from doing dangerous things and shouldn't. And I am sure that people have gone to this area without a cache, no one is required to get any cache.

 

Not only did the own put a disclaimer, but posted and even suggested taking an alternate route! It's sad that you think people shouldn't be able to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own safety. The people who can't will put themselves in that danger whether there is a cache their or not!

 

Edited March 1, 2010 by apyro

[+NeecesandNephews]

If for anything this forum is predictable.

Some of the replies to my post are exactly what I expected.

It doesnt change the fact that just because you put a disclaimer does not get you a free pass at negligence.

 

Its one thing have a cache in a lamp post and another putting it in a place that is visibly dangerous and to not take the necessary steps to make it safe and a disclaimer is not enough.

 

Sooner or later someone will get hurt and take it to their lawyers and then it will not be a popcorn show... Its only a matter of time.

 

 

 

I make my living as an Electrician. So I should be held responsible if I come install an outlet in your kitchen and you go and stick a butter knife in it and kill yourself??? I mean after all, even if I warned you about the dangers of trying that, I failed to put in the necessary security features to prevent you from doing it despite my warning??

 

So common sense just doesn't figure in to your argument does it??

 

 

And anyway, I don't have to worry about it. I can sit here and eat my popcorn because it isn't my cache, I am not going to try and find it, and I have gone on record here as saying "yeah that looks dangerous" and "I wouldnt try that".

 

Besides... there is another thread going here that seems to think getting a criminal trial relating to geocaching is a laugh, and you think a civil suit has more potential?

Edited March 1, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+Lil Devil]

Only 138 miles from me. Added to my "To Do" bookmark list. Thanks.

[knowschad]

Now, if you say it's safe, when it's not...different story. If you say a gun isn't loaded, and it is... different story.

I'll take that a step further... if you say the gun isn't loaded, it is still MY responsibility to verify that before I look down the barrel.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Wonder how long it will take the ambulance chasing "para-lawyers" from that other thread to get over here?? I mean we are obviously talking real money here!!

 

 

[+buddhistmonk]

I would say it's up to those who try and that's why attributes are helpful. There is one in my area that is under a bridge 20 foot up and I'm scared of heights so I'm obviously not gonna attempt it. All caches are at the discretion of the cacher, so you cache at your own risk

[+t4e]

If for anything this forum is predictable.

Some of the replies to my post are exactly what I expected.

It doesnt change the fact that just because you put a disclaimer does not get you a free pass at negligence.

 

Its one thing have a cache in a lamp post and another putting it in a place that is visibly dangerous and to not take the necessary steps to make it safe and a disclaimer is not enough.

 

Sooner or later someone will get hurt and take it to their lawyers and then it will not be a popcorn show... Its only a matter of time.

 

in the law of torts, "negligence" is not the same as "carelessness", a disclaimer will get someone off the hook for negligence...by providing the details of the consequences of your actions should you choose to ignore the disclaimer/warning proves "due care" was exercised on the part of the accused

 

is as simple as that

 

your Timmy coffee cup clearly says " be careful, its hot"...if you have no common sense and ignore the warning and choose to pour it over yourself, get 2nd degree burns and hope to sue Timmy you're out of luck

[ZeMartelo]

your Timmy coffee cup clearly says " be careful, its hot"...if you have no common sense and ignore the warning and choose to pour it over yourself, get 2nd degree burns and hope to sue Timmy you're out of luck

What happened in that Macdonald's lawsuit? Didnt she sue because she dropped hot coffee on her legs and won?

Anyway, lets just hope nobody will get hurt looking for that cache.

I wonder if theres any lawyers here that could shed some light about potential liability for cache owners?

I would be interested to know what a professional in the matter of law has to say about it.

[+bittsen]

your Timmy coffee cup clearly says " be careful, its hot"...if you have no common sense and ignore the warning and choose to pour it over yourself, get 2nd degree burns and hope to sue Timmy you're out of luck

What happened in that Macdonald's lawsuit? Didnt she sue because she dropped hot coffee on her legs and won?

Anyway, lets just hope nobody will get hurt looking for that cache.

I wonder if theres any lawyers here that could shed some light about potential liability for cache owners?

I would be interested to know what a professional in the matter of law has to say about it.

She got burned because an employee had heated the coffee in a microwave before giving it to the customer. It was served hotter than normal. In other words, the employee presented something as safe, when it wasn't.

 

But, that lawsuit is one of the many excessive payouts that have led to the current mentality. 1) that you can sue anyone for something stupid and win and 2) that lawsuits are scrutinized much more than they were, eliminating some lawsuits that are valid.

 

 

Go ahead, think you can sue a cache owner if you do something to get yourself hurt. You will spend lots of money on an attorney and walk away with nothing.

[+Chrysalides]

We call that the Darwin effect

Remember, Darwinism works only if you get yourself killed before you have kids.

 

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with that one. I guess DarkZen must be amused at the activity that cache's audit log is generating.

[+bittsen]

We call that the Darwin effect

Remember, Darwinism works only if you get yourself killed before you have kids.

 

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with that one. I guess DarkZen must be amused at the activity that cache's audit log is generating.

Yeah, good point. I suppose if you get yourself killed after you are done reproducing you just decrease the load on the global resources.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

We call that the Darwin effect

Remember, Darwinism works only if you get yourself killed before you have kids.

 

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with that one. I guess DarkZen must be amused at the activity that cache's audit log is generating.

Yeah, good point. I suppose if you get yourself killed after you are done reproducing you just decrease the load on the global resources.

And INCREASE the load on social resources

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

A new cache came up in our area that seems to be too dangerous for our sport. According to the logs there is as much as a 75 foot drop off! What do you guys think?

 

This Cache Will Make You Cross

 

It is a cute name though, I'll give it that.

Well, not everything can be as safe as Lazytown. Don't worry, Sportacus will save you!!

Edited March 1, 2010 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+joespaz]

Only 138 miles from me. Added to my "To Do" bookmark list. Thanks.

 

You driving...I'm ready to go! I'm a big guy...300 pounds crossin a log, hope it doesn't break.

Edited March 1, 2010 by joespaz

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache is way too dangerous for most people, but not for being listed. I'd enjoy doing it.

The real danger is that it looks like it could be found without safety equipment. Most of the really dangerous ones are impossible to do without using ropes and harnesses. This one could tempt a few people, but it really is their own responsibility if they want to do it.

 

75' drop off? Pish Tosh! I've done some with a 450' drop off.

"

 

A fall from 450' would be more painless than a fall from 75'. You might survive the 75', but it would be messy and if you died it would take a little longer.

 

I have fallen 30' and broke my femur in a few places, but it could have been much worse with back injury, head trauma or death possible. I actually have been in quite a few situations where I narrowly missed serious injury and death, but only by sheer luck. Fairly recently I was a few seconds away from a fatal accident and if I had been there only a little later it would have been me instead. Survival often depends on faith and luck in those moments then you really don't have time to think. Several years ago, I was driving a Jeep with 35" tires and it fishtailed in a curve on wet leaves in the rain and after I steered it the other way it spun around towards an oncoming minivan. Oddly somehow the edge of the front tire managed to clip the edge of the rear bumper cover of the oncoming van and tore it off, being the only damage. Nobody could believe that it really happened that way. I was headed towards an oncoming vehicle, but missed it completely except for the 1/2 inch or so of the rear bumper which extended out past the side. The police showed up and they couldnt understand it either. How does someone tear the rear bumper off of an oncoming car? I could have thought that I was unlucky, as 1/2 inch the other way I would have missed it completely, but if it was 1/2 closer it would have been much worse. If I had steered it a little differently it ould have been a head on collision or flipped over. If I had completely missed it, I may have eventually forgotten about it. Luck works in odd ways sometimes..

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The only thing I see wrong with it is the 2000+ mile travel distance.

 

It's also in a gorgeous area of the Santa Cruz mountains. When I used to work at Hewlett Packard many years ago I went to that area many times for an annual picnic that was held on some HP owned property very close to that cache. The area has one of the higher concentration of large redwood trees in the area.

 

Many others have pointed out that the terrain rating is appropriately set. The 5 star rating is for a rope harness required to safely cross the log but also indicates a less dangerous, but physically demanding approach can be taken by climbing down and up the gorge.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The only thing I see wrong with it is the 2000+ mile travel distance.

No snow out there right now. How is it in NY?

 

That particular are *is* particular notorious for mudslides. When I lived not too far away from there a long time ago I delivered a bunch of bottle water to a red cross station that was set up after a bunch of mudslides that were probably 5 miles from the cache killed several people.

 

As far as snow in NY goes...I was up at my in-laws place yesterday helping plow their driveway. The snow banks along their 600' driveway in the woods were 4-5' high. They had a "professional" snow plow guy come and plow their driveway on Saturday. He plowed a portion of the driveway then backed into a ditch (from a spring that runs along their driveway). The guy was stuck their for three hours. Here's the kicker. The guy that got stuck was the same person that dug the ditch for the spring run-off.

 

I'd love to place a cache on their property sometime but I doubt they'd want geocachers wandering around their property.

[Clan Riffster]

For once, I'm simply flabbergasted. I don't even know where to start. Has this game gotten to be so main stream that park & grabs are the only acceptable solution? I dread the day when caches have to meet some OSHA like standard for safety before they can get published. It makes me wonder what percentage of cachers actually have experienced some form of nature that's not found in a Wally World parking lot. I own several caches that can make you very dead, very fast, if you try a casual approach in your hunt.

 

If you were to research until you determined which was the most dangerous cache on the planet, and decide to hunt for it, you would be in far greater danger during your drive to the cache site than you'd ever be at ground zero.

 

My advice? If anything above a 1/1 makes you uncomfortable, don't hunt for them.

I'd recommend knitting as an alternative hobby, but some of those needles are pretty pointy.

Stamp collecting maybe? Nah... Too many toxins in the adhesive.

(sigh...)

[+Wadcutter]

No one forces anyone to go after a cache. If you think it's too dangerous for you then you're probably right, it is too dangerous for you. Don't do it. For another person who has the skills and training it may be a piece of cake.

75 ft drop? 450 ft drop? Take a look at this cache and some of the pictures. Stone Pony

[+Snoogans]

This is why we have terrain and difficulty ratings, and a disclaimer.

 

I over rate the terrain and difficulty on many of my caches just because the unprepared, willy nilly cachers could find themselves in a life threatening situation if they tried for one at the wrong time of year or weather.

 

I'd rather not hear that there was a Darwin Intervention as a result of someone trying for one of my caches.

[+Kit Fox]

For once, I'm simply flabbergasted. I don't even know where to start. Has this game gotten to be so main stream that park & grabs are the only acceptable solution? I dread the day when caches have to meet some OSHA like standard for safety before they can get published. It makes me wonder what percentage of cachers actually have experienced some form of nature that's not found in a Wally World parking lot. I own several caches that can make you very dead, very fast, if you try a casual approach in your hunt.

 

When they did away with ALRs, owner's of extreme caches (on top of towers, trees, cliffs) were prevented from determining what constitutes a real find. No longer can we require proof that someone actually reached the cache. With the new rules, someone can scale a cliff, and sign for a group. Those standing at ground level let the climber sign their name for them. In my opinion, Geocaching is devolving.

[+briansnat]

This is why we have terrain and difficulty ratings, and a disclaimer.

 

I over rate the terrain and difficulty on many of my caches just because the unprepared, willy nilly cachers could find themselves in a life threatening situation if they tried for one at the wrong time of year or weather.

 

I'd rather not hear that there was a Darwin Intervention as a result of someone trying for one of my caches.

 

I've heard of others doing this. Problem is if it is commonly done, then people will look at high terrain ratings

and dismiss them as nothing special, or a newbie might start with one or two of yours, then assume that one from another hider with the same rating is just as easy.

[+Snoogans]

This is why we have terrain and difficulty ratings, and a disclaimer.

 

I over rate the terrain and difficulty on many of my caches just because the unprepared, willy nilly cachers could find themselves in a life threatening situation if they tried for one at the wrong time of year or weather.

 

I'd rather not hear that there was a Darwin Intervention as a result of someone trying for one of my caches.

 

I've heard of others doing this. Problem is if it is commonly done, then people will look at high terrain ratings

and dismiss them as nothing special, or a newbie might start with one or two of yours, then assume that one from another hider with the same rating is just as easy.

 

One could assume such, but I do this on more remote and hard to access caches. The willy nilly cachers could still pick up my cache in a general PQ because of the closeness on the map to other easier caches. However, the difference is in elevation. Many of these caches are between 10,000 & 11,000 feet up in 4x4 terrain and at the right time of year you would need a shovel or at least an ice ax to get the cache.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Snoogans

[+bflentje]

I would say the proper benchmark for "too dangerous" rests with:

 

Unknown CachePsycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-c332841529da

 

I mean...it's actually radioactive.

 

While I Love the notion of his PUC caches, they've got liar's cache written all over them. With the exception of maybe the one requiring a helicopter, most of them I've read take creativity to new levels. And if I am wrong, I'd love to have the nerve to complete them. I'll never know as I don't live that way. And NO, I don't need to be admonished for having an opinion about them.

 

But back on topic.. the more stars the better, as far as I am concerned. Assuming the ratings are PROPERLY chosen that is.

[+bflentje]

For once, I'm simply flabbergasted. I don't even know where to start. Has this game gotten to be so main stream that park & grabs are the only acceptable solution? I dread the day when caches have to meet some OSHA like standard for safety before they can get published. It makes me wonder what percentage of cachers actually have experienced some form of nature that's not found in a Wally World parking lot. I own several caches that can make you very dead, very fast, if you try a casual approach in your hunt.

 

If you were to research until you determined which was the most dangerous cache on the planet, and decide to hunt for it, you would be in far greater danger during your drive to the cache site than you'd ever be at ground zero.

 

My advice? If anything above a 1/1 makes you uncomfortable, don't hunt for them.

I'd recommend knitting as an alternative hobby, but some of those needles are pretty pointy.

Stamp collecting maybe? Nah... Too many toxins in the adhesive.

(sigh...)

 

Easy.. we've all heard your cache across the swamp stories and would love to hunt them.

Edited March 1, 2010 by bflentje

[+buttaskotch]

A new cache came up in our area that seems to be too dangerous for our sport. According to the logs there is as much as a 75 foot drop off! What do you guys think?

 

This Cache Will Make You Cross

 

It is a cute name though, I'll give it that.

The appropriate disclaimers and terrain level accompany this cache. This game comes with risks. If you are not prepared for it, don't do it and leave it to others to have fun as they see fit

[Clan Riffster]

In my opinion, Geocaching is devolving.

I think it's been devolving since the very first cacher stuffed a scrap of paper into a film can, calling it a cache.

But I'm not bitter!

[7rxc]

I'm thinkin' more like D.B. Cooper, since our contribution jar isn't filling up too quickly. Hopefully we will at least be able to raise enough for a parachute, but so far it isn't looking too promising.

 

You'll still have to pay to get him high enough ( by aircraft) to use it...

 

BTW.. they are less expensive if they don't have to work! Even cheaper if the container only has to hold 80 lbs of concrete instead of a chute...

 

JUST KIDDING

 

Doug

[7rxc]

Yes but still, on that cache one misstep wont send you to your death!

 

ever heard of loss of orientation in dark enclosed spaces, and no GPS?

 

there is a very good reason the "death" icon is there

 

The sewer one specifically states that there is a significant risk of flooding during rainy times...

something cavers take seriously... and so should cachers heading into closed spaces, be they caves, sewers or other similar... not to mention, air quality, collapse risk etc. Risks abound, everyone going about their life needs to both care and prepare for it... Notice the difference between Haiti and Chile earthquakes? Some of that was not avoidable, and some of it was a matter of will and preparation.

 

As for the OP cache... I notice that it's PMO, which means I won't see it at all anytime soon... like most cachers around... that in itself limits the risk to many... although that Stone Pony thing is very interesting..

to bad I'm getting Older... and don't have a passport yet, so Stateside is out right now.. SMOM situation.

 

Doug

[knowschad]

I would say the proper benchmark for "too dangerous" rests with:

 

Unknown CachePsycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-c332841529da

 

I mean...it's actually radioactive.

While I Love the notion of his PUC caches, they've got liar's cache written all over them. With the exception of maybe the one requiring a helicopter, most of them I've read take creativity to new levels. And if I am wrong, I'd love to have the nerve to complete them. I'll never know as I don't live that way.

Actually, his Phycho Urban Cache #10 - Derelict Grunge Acropolis is at least hidden in an area that is just as he describes it, and the gallery pictures depict. Check out this website: http://fortwiki.com/Battery_Irons. Edited March 1, 2010 by knowschad

[+Renegade Knight]

A new cache came up in our area that seems to be too dangerous for our sport. According to the logs there is as much as a 75 foot drop off! What do you guys think?...

 

I think it's a great cache. The owner even says, "If you don't have the gear, find another way across".

 

The cache is good. The area is typically of any weekend in the woods were we have to cross creeks, rivers, ravines etc. We all know the risks we are comfortable taking.

[+BCSasquatch]

I think the CO has done a good job of outlining the risks and the suggestion to find an alternative approach if you are not properly equipped. I don't see this as too dangerous. It is up to the individual to practice safe caching, and that will look a little different for each person.

[GOF and Bacall]

For once, I'm simply flabbergasted. I don't even know where to start. Has this game gotten to be so main stream that park & grabs are the only acceptable solution? I dread the day when caches have to meet some OSHA like standard for safety before they can get published. It makes me wonder what percentage of cachers actually have experienced some form of nature that's not found in a Wally World parking lot. I own several caches that can make you very dead, very fast, if you try a casual approach in your hunt.

 

When they did away with ALRs, owner's of extreme caches (on top of towers, trees, cliffs) were prevented from determining what constitutes a real find. No longer can we require proof that someone actually reached the cache. With the new rules, someone can scale a cliff, and sign for a group. Those standing at ground level let the climber sign their name for them. In my opinion, Geocaching is devolving.

 

Yes, devolving does describe it.

[GermanSailor]

What do you guys think?

No, it's not to dangerous. I don't have to go there without the proper equipment. If I think it's too dangerous, I don't do it. That's either grown up responsibility or just a darwin award.

 

GermanSailor

[+linuxxpert]

I live for those kind of caches, so do a lot of buddies of mine.... we hide them... we find them. And yes there is a certain risk we take every time we go out, but we prepare, bring the proper gear and keep an eye on each other..... If a cache seems too dangerous, its probably just out of your league and you should not attempt it.

If you head out unprepared and get hurt.... well..... thats where Darwin comes in. Would you go scuba diving without scuba gear?

 

Other dangerous activities:

 

rock climbing

sky diving

car racing

mountain biking

fast food

scuba diving

sport fishing

zip lining

skiing

blah blah

blah

blah

 

The list goes on and on.... the world is a fun playground!

 

If you think that cache is dangerous, check out the caches on http://www.extreme-caching.com, the largest adventurous cache bookmark list. This site is run by me and my friends.

[+t4e]

I live for those kind of caches, so do a lot of buddies of mine.... we hide them... we find them. And yes there is a certain risk we take every time we go out, but we prepare, bring the proper gear and keep an eye on each other..... If a cache seems too dangerous, its probably just out of your league and you should not attempt it.

If you head out unprepared and get hurt.... well..... thats where Darwin comes in. Would you go scuba diving without scuba gear?

 

Other dangerous activities:

 

rock climbing

sky diving

car racing

mountain biking

fast food

scuba diving

sport fishing

zip lining

skiing

blah blah

blah

blah

 

The list goes on and on.... the world is a fun playground!

 

If you think that cache is dangerous, check out the caches on http://www.extreme-caching.com, the largest adventurous cache bookmark list. This site is run by me and my friends.

 

you forgot: getting out of bed each day

[+bittsen]

Danger is subjective.

 

I had a cacher try to have one of my caches archived because it was too dangerous. The cache is 50 feet from a bus stop and 4 feet from the sidewalk (not on the street side either).

 

Some people see danger in the eyes of a bunny rabbit....

[+DragonsWest]

That's a mildly hazardous cache.

 

This is a dangerous cache, but only to those who are outside the skills necessary to achieve it.

 

I'd like to do this one, but I'd best spend a month in the gym before trying it.

[Clan Riffster]

Some people see danger in the eyes of a bunny rabbit....

I guess that would depend a lot on the bunny, eh?

[+DragonsWest]

Some people see danger in the eyes of a bunny rabbit....

I guess that would depend a lot on the bunny, eh?

 

Brave Sir Riffster, your cache awaits.

Edited March 1, 2010 by DragonsWest

[+simpjkee]

That cache is not too dangerous. It looks like a fun challenge. I'm not sure I could do it, without going the alternate route.

[+rushkult]

Do not DO it if you are frightened !!

It´s your own risk.

So please don`t cry.

 

Everybody should keep an eye on hisself

Edited March 1, 2010 by rushkult

[Clan Riffster]

Brave Sir Riffster, your cache awaits.

When danger reared it's ugly head, Sir Riffster turned his back and fled...

(sigh...) That one's in Kalifornia. I don't think they'll let me in.

[+GeoGeeBee]

If for anything this forum is predictable.

Some of the replies to my post are exactly what I expected.

It doesnt change the fact that just because you put a disclaimer does not get you a free pass at negligence.

 

 

And that, my friend, is exactly why geocaching.com doesn't have anything about "safety" in the guidelines.

 

If Groundspeak, Inc. got into the business of rejecting caches because they were too dangerous, they would be creating liability for themselves, not eliminating it. The first time someone got hurt attempting a cache, they could sue Groundspeak for failing to reject that cache.

 

Since Groundspeak doesn't evaluate the safety of caches, they are just a listing service and have no liability if you get hurt. It's up to you to assume that all caches are dangerous, then evaluate your own ability to safely seek the cache.

[+geodarts]

A cacher in my general area used to routinely provide his own disclaimer:

 

"Neither Groundspeak nor trailpuppy shall be held responsible for injuries or damages of any kind incurred while searching for this cache. Be safe and have fun!:

 

The adventures I had getting to some of his caches are among my favorite caching experiences -- what is there not to like about a nine mile hike, rock scrambling, bushwhacking, and ledges with sheer drops? We are planning to try for another one next April. The only near-accident that I know about associated with one of his caches was one of his easier locations that lacked this disclaimer (as I recall) and the cache ended up being archived soon after that, without a find.

 

But I put the original cache in this thread on my "to do" list in case I can convince any friends to drive down there. Of course the cache does not conform to the California State Parks rules regarding geocaching, which would definitely forbid any of these types of hides (and this one in particular), making geocaching safe for all. But that is another topic.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Erickson

[+mountainman38]

A new cache came up in our area that seems to be too dangerous for our sport. According to the logs there is as much as a 75 foot drop off! What do you guys think?

 

This Cache Will Make You Cross

 

It is a cute name though, I'll give it that.

 

Not sure what the problem is. The cache page clearly talks about how dangerous they feel it is, so what's the worry? Is this in the vein of every-cacher-should-be-able-to-find-every-cache-everywhere?

 

From the picture, that log looks wider than a lot of logs used for mountain bike trails. I've walked across much narrower ones than that, just for fun.

[knowschad]

A new cache came up in our area that seems to be too dangerous for our sport. According to the logs there is as much as a 75 foot drop off! What do you guys think?

 

This Cache Will Make You Cross

 

It is a cute name though, I'll give it that.

 

Not sure what the problem is. The cache page clearly talks about how dangerous they feel it is, so what's the worry? Is this in the vein of every-cacher-should-be-able-to-find-every-cache-everywhere?

 

From the picture, that log looks wider than a lot of logs used for mountain bike trails. I've walked across much narrower ones than that, just for fun.

The cache owner, DarkZen, says here that he simply walked across it. The consequences of if you fall are the issue, not will you fall.

[+StarBrand]

I am certain that not many of us would be real happy having some third party attempt to judge what is and is not "too dangerous".

 

What is too dangerous for one is daily routine for another. - give the information out and let the finder decide if they are comfortable or fit enough for the challenge.