Jump to content

Should reviewers be responsible for 'safety'?


sbell111

Recommended Posts

The following issue came up in the 'power trail' thread. It was off-topic there, but I think that it's important enough for further discussion.

 

Similarly, if the road has narrow shoulders and winding curves, it might be unwise to develop a power trail there. For standard caches, people usually are willing to safely park at a roadside turnout and walk 100 yards to the cache. For power caches, not so much.

Safety does not come into play when listing caches. If teh cache meets the guidelines and is rated properly, it's listed.

I certainly hope safety comes into play, even if it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines. According to the Geocachers' Creed: "When placing or seeking geocaches, I will...Not endanger myself or others."

 

If you want something from the guidelines, then this one seems open-ended enough to cover situations where vehicles coming around blind curves have to suddenly swerve to avoid unsafely parked vehicles or, worse, geocachers crossing the road: "Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public." Do we really want to give geocaching a black eye with seriously unsafe behavior?

 

And if the actions of the cache owner, reviewer, and/or Groundspeak constitute reckless disregard for the safety of others, then they could be legally liable for gross negligence.

If a cache seeker chooses to park illegally on an active roadway, I fail to see how the blame can be placed on the cache owner or GS.

 

The bottom line is that each of us is responsible for our own safety. As long as a cache is not misrepresented through bad coords or incorrect ratings, all is well.

What if it wasn't simply a typical active roadway but one with narrow shoulders and winding curves, as in the example I gave?

 

Yes, each of us must take significant responsibility for our own safety. But that doesn't always mean others are free from responsibility.

 

If I rent a car from a company that knew it had a leaky brake line, am I entirely to blame for any accident because I didn't give it a more thorough inspection before driving?

 

If the builders of a new office tower improperly secured a window and it comes crashing down on me on a windy day, am I entirely to blame for any injury because I wasn't being more cautious?

 

If a doctor carelessly prescribes the wrong medication for the conditions I describe, am I entirely to blame for any consequences because I didn't get a second opinion?

 

I think blame sometimes can be shared.

 

There are situations where people shouldn't do certain things but are likely to do so. People shouldn't have a plugged-in TV sitting on the edge of the bathtub when they bathe, but some predictably will. When it's easy to foresee these likely-to-occur situations, then I think it behooves us to mitigate them when it is practical to do so. That's why most building codes have special requirements for electrical outlets in bathrooms.

 

If a cache owner creates a power trail on a dangerous stretch of road, it doesn't require much imagination to foresee situations when many geocachers will give in to the temptation and engage in unsafe behavior for the sake of a quick find. If it's predictable that dangerous situations are likely to occur, I'm guessing most cache owners would assume some responsibility and opt not to create such a power trail. If some did and the dangerous situation was obvious, then I hope most reviewers would veto the proposed trail.

 

Let's all remember that if your disregard for another person's safety is reckless enough, you could be legally liable for gross negligence.

In my opinion, if a cache is placed in a location where it is legal for a pedestrian to be and it is correctly rated, then there is no disregard for the safety of others, so gross negligence is not an issue.

 

A cache that is placed near a roadway in an area that is legal for a pedestrian to be does not 'likely to cause someone grave bodily harm' because the cache seekers may stupidly choose to park on the roadway instead of finding a legal parking place.

 

In addtion, as it relates to CR's original point, power trail caches should be listed using the same guidelines as non-power trail caches. Each cache stands on it's own and is listed or not based on how it meets the guidelines.

Link to comment

While the Geocacher's Creed does mention not endangering cachers, there is not an actual Groundspeak policy against it. Caches need appropriate D/T, there is an Attribute for Dangerous Area, and appropriate warnings on the cache page.

 

There is a multicache in Maryland located inside a closed nuclear facility; the cache is a 5/5 and the page goes to great lengths to explain all the safety measures neccesary.

 

I personally would not seek a roadside cache along a dangerous winding road nor in a location requiring me to wear a radition suit. But if you're going to limit caches based on location you need a specific list of prohibited location types else you get mired in a "what is safe?" debate.

 

I will point out this: a local State Park had a cache placed outside the entrance to the park. Attendance was so high at a recent event at said park that the number of cachers seeking the entrance cache nearly caused several car accidents at the park entrance. The park promptly requested the cache being archived (their request was quickly granted).

Edited by joshism
Link to comment

Just because I publish a book that tells you how to blow things up, you don't have to attempt any of my recipes. Movies like "Jackass" show lots of ways you can hurt yourself. If you try any of them and get hurt you aren't going to win a lawsuit against the film's makers.

 

It isn't up to a cache reviewer to make sure people follow safety precautions when hunting a cache. Even on a simple lamp post hide you run the risk of getting hit by a car. Safety when hunting a cache is the responsibility of the seeker.

 

Yes, the cache owner should provide correct information as to the challenge level (usually by selecting the correct terrain rating), but the cache owner can not be expected to know the ability level of every seeker. Ultimate responsibility lies with each person hunting the cache to know his/her own limitations.

Link to comment

The reviewers couldn't be 'responsible for safety' if they tried. They can only review the information that is provided by the cache owner. There is no humanly possible way they can monitor and evaluate the safety of nearly 1.3 million caches spread around the world. Let alone all the new cache submissions they must process every day.

 

The caches are placed out in the real world in a constantly changing environment. Even if the cache was "safe", by some subjective standard, on the day it was placed it may not be safe the next day.

 

At the end of the day, Geocaching.com is a listing service for owners of caches. It's no more responsible than a hiking website that lists hikes, a climbing website that lists climbs or a scuba site that lists dives.

 

This is one of those times where individuals must be responsible for their own safety. They have their eyes, ears and a brain at the cache site and must make that decision for themselves. It would be foolhardy to expect some part-time volunteer reviewer sitting at his computer in Hoboken to be able to make a better decision on safety than a person who is actually at the caching site.

Link to comment

Well, let me speak from experience here.

 

First, forget the "Geocacher's Creed". It is not law. It is not even a geocaching.com rule or guideline. It's something a bunch of cachers came up with and some agreed to abide by. I am not debating it's value or intent, simply that it is not in any way binding on all geocachers, Groundspeak, or the volunteers.

 

As many of you know, I was very badly injured 3 years ago while caching. I fell from a retaining wall that I was climbing. Was the cache in a safe location? Do I blame the CO? Do I blame Groundspeak? Do I blame the reviewer that published the cache?

 

Absolutely not on all counts.

 

When I got there I made the conscious decision to take the risk and go for the cache. No one put a gun to my head or coerced me into going for it in any way. It was MY choice and I (and, unfortunately, those closest to me) suffered the consequences of that choice.

 

The reviewer would have had no way to know the safety issues of that cache. We have 1 reviewer who covers all of Texas and, I believe, he lives in the DFW area. I am about 3-1/2 hrs. south of there and, to my knowledge, the reviewer has never been here and would have no knowledge of the area where the cache had been placed; especially considering that was a newly constructed area at the time. Regardless of my location, how could 1 person be familiar enough of every nook and cranny in Texas to be able to discern from a listing submission what is safe and what is not? Additionally, the cache description alluded to the possibility of some climbing being required, but nothing specific was said and certainly nothing was said of what the obstacle to be climbed was.

 

This game boils down to individual responsibility in almost every regard. The only exception being the reviewers trying to be sure listing guidelines are being followed and known restrictions against caches are being considered. Everything else is a personal choice of the hiders and finders and WE are responsible for OUR OWN choices.

 

</soapbox>

Link to comment

Well, let me speak from experience here.

 

First, forget the "Geocacher's Creed". It is not law. It is not even a geocaching.com rule or guideline. It's something a bunch of cachers came up with and some agreed to abide by. I am not debating it's value or intent, simply that it is not in any way binding on all geocachers, Groundspeak, or the volunteers.

 

As many of you know, I was very badly injured 3 years ago while caching. I fell from a retaining wall that I was climbing. Was the cache in a safe location? Do I blame the CO? Do I blame Groundspeak? Do I blame the reviewer that published the cache?

 

Absolutely not on all counts.

 

When I got there I made the conscious decision to take the risk and go for the cache. No one put a gun to my head or coerced me into going for it in any way. It was MY choice and I (and, unfortunately, those closest to me) suffered the consequences of that choice.

 

The reviewer would have had no way to know the safety issues of that cache. We have 1 reviewer who covers all of Texas and, I believe, he lives in the DFW area. I am about 3-1/2 hrs. south of there and, to my knowledge, the reviewer has never been here and would have no knowledge of the area where the cache had been placed; especially considering that was a newly constructed area at the time. Regardless of my location, how could 1 person be familiar enough of every nook and cranny in Texas to be able to discern from a listing submission what is safe and what is not? Additionally, the cache description alluded to the possibility of some climbing being required, but nothing specific was said and certainly nothing was said of what the obstacle to be climbed was.

 

This game boils down to individual responsibility in almost every regard. The only exception being the reviewers trying to be sure listing guidelines are being followed and known restrictions against caches are being considered. Everything else is a personal choice of the hiders and finders and WE are responsible for OUR OWN choices.

 

</soapbox>

I don't think it could be said better.

Link to comment

Actually, the Geocacher's Creed (which more Geocachers should be reading these days!) goes into more detail that explains itself much better than that one line statement. Additionally, it is speaking to the cache owner and cache hunters, not to the reviewers.

 

...Not Endanger Myself or Others

  • Like any outdoor activity, geocaching involves some inherent risk and many geocachers enjoy manageable risks. Minimize inordinate risks.
  • When creating a cache, describe any hidden dangers and, if possible, arrange the hunt to minimize these dangers.
  • When seeking a cache, know your limitations and be aware of your surroundings. Don't attempt anything beyond your abilities.
  • A cache you own, or one you're trading out of, could be found by children or even a prisoner work crew - consider the location of the cache and those likely to find it when deciding what to leave as a trade item.

Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

 

GEOCACHING.COM SITE

TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT

 

Last updated: June 10, 2009

 

Welcome to www.geocaching.com, the Global Headquarters for the Sport of Geocaching. This Web site includes access to geocaching related information, the Groundspeak Forums and such other services and sites as may be made available form time to time by Groundspeak Inc. (the "Site") These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the account holder ("You") and Groundspeak, Inc. ("Groundspeak").

 

9. Indemnity

 

You agree to indemnify and hold Groundspeak, its officers, employees, agents and volunteer administrators harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that Groundspeak may incur in connection with: (a) Your breach of any of the terms of this Agreement; or ( b ) Your use of the Site.

 

10. NO WARRANTIES

 

Neither Groundspeak, nor any successor, predecessor, agent, officer, or employee of Groundspeak, warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information or downloads published to or otherwise accessible via the Site ("Site Information"). Groundspeak will not be liable for any damage or loss caused by Your reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of Site Information. Because of the number of possible sources of information available through the Site, and the inherent hazards and uncertainties of electronic distribution, there may be delays, omissions, or inaccuracies in the Site Information. The Site Information may include facts, views, opinions, and recommendations of individuals and organizations. Groundspeak does not endorse, assert, or guarantee the truthfulness or reliability of any such facts, views, opinions, or recommendations, nor any statements made by persons other than authorized Groundspeak spokespersons, including, without limitation, information contained in the forum areas of the Site. The Site may also contain links to one or more internet sites outside of the Site. Groundspeak is not responsible for the content of such outside internet sites and does not warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information or downloads posted on or obtained from such outside internet sites. You rely on the Site Information, as well as information found on outside internet sites linked to the Site, at Your own risk.

 

Geocaching, hiking, backpacking, and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a cache. Be prepared for Your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution. You assume all risks arising in connection with seeking a cache or any other related activity.

 

THE SITE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE SITE INFORMATION AND ALL OTHER CONTENT PROVIDED ON THE SITE, ARE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS", AND YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO YOUR USE OF THE SITE, THE SITE INFORMATION AND THE RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SITE. Groundspeak HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, DUTIES OR CONDITIONS (IF ANY), WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH REGARD TO THE SITE OR ANY CONTENT PROVIDED ON THE SITE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, AND LACK OF NEGLIGENCE. Groundspeak GIVES NO WARRANTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE SITE, AGAINST INFRINGEMENT, OR AS TO TITLE, OR THAT INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE SITE, THE SITE ITSELF, OR Groundspeak'S EFFORTS, WILL FULFILL ANY OF YOUR PARTICULAR PURPOSES OR NEEDS. FURTHERMORE, Groundspeak GIVES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE SITE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME; FUNCTIONALITY; TIMELINESS OF SERVICES; ACCURACY OR CURRENCY OF CONTENT; LACK OF VIRUSES; OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY.

 

11. LIMITATION OF DAMAGES

 

TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AND REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OR CAUSE OF ACTION OR THE ALLEGED BASIS OF THE CLAIM, YOU AGREE THAT Groundspeak, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATORS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, DIRECT, OR OTHER DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR USE OF THE SITE OR THE SITE INFORMATION, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, AND EVEN IF THE REMEDIES OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AT LAW, OR IN EQUITY, FAIL OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. THIS LIMITATION AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT OF Groundspeak, OF TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT OR PRODUCT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF WARRANTY.

 

SHOULD A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION DETERMINE THAT THE LIMITATION ABOVE IS NOT LEGALLY VALID, Groundspeak, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATOR'S LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING ANY TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED IN THIS AGREEMENT) INCLUDING FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES ARISING FROM YOUR RELIANCE ON SITE INFORMATION, WILL BE LIMITED TO U.S.$10.00 OR THE AMOUNT OF DIRECT DAMAGES INCURRED BY YOU IN RELIANCE ON THIS SITE OR ON SITE INFORMATION, WHICHEVER IS LESS. YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND YOU HEREBY RELEASE Groundspeak, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATORS FROM ALL OBLIGATIONS, LIABILITY, CLAIMS OR DEMANDS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

I think it cuts both ways. If you make the Reviewers and Groundspeak responsible for the safety of people searching for dangerously placed caches, then there should be an exam or test to qualify to hunt these sorts of caches, or documrntation of proper training. Those folks that are clearly unqualified from hunting these sorts of caches should be excluded from seeing the data, like a sort of hybrid PMO.

Link to comment

No, certainly not. The reviewers are responsible for ensuring that submitted caches comply with the guidelines. The word 'Safety' is not found in the guidelines. While the Creed may be a nice community project that augments the spirit of the guidelines, it isn't an official Groundspeak document and shouldn't be part of the review process.

 

It would be nice if hiders considered cacher safety when placing caches, but ultimately it is up to each and every seeker of a cache to determine their own limits as to what they feel is safe for them to attempt to find.

Link to comment

That's the devil's game. Placing a cache where people can legally and safely access it, but are highly unlikely to do so, such as a powertrail on a winding road. No fault can be put on the reviewer, because people can access it legally anyhow. What probably will occur is nothing, until an accident or a complaint from law enforcement which will make the entire sport look bad. Since they are allowing powertrails, they probably should adjust the guidelines specifically for this. An individual cache in that spot would seem perfectly OK to me. But a entire series designed to be done quickly is more like a trap.

 

The only blame would be completely on the cache seeker if they did the trail by parking on the road. But the cache hider should be wise enough to realize that it is a bad idea, even it it meets the guidelines.

Link to comment

I think someone mentioned it in the other thread, but it is worth repeating here: If Groundspeak tried to review caches for safety issues, they would be INCREASING their legal risk, not decreasing it.

 

I'm no lawyer, but my meager understanding of the law suggests that trying to sue Groundspeak for a caching injury would be fruitless. If it could be shown that a particular cache placement was grossly negligent, then a suit against the cache placer might be successful. But I think suing GS for a dangerous cache would be like suing the post office if you are injured by a letter bomb.

Link to comment

That's the devil's game. Placing a cache where people can legally and safely access it, but are highly unlikely to do so, such as a powertrail on a winding road. No fault can be put on the reviewer, because people can access it legally anyhow. What probably will occur is nothing, until an accident or a complaint from law enforcement which will make the entire sport look bad. Since they are allowing powertrails, they probably should adjust the guidelines specifically for this. An individual cache in that spot would seem perfectly OK to me. But a entire series designed to be done quickly is more like a trap.

The only blame would be completely on the cache seeker if they did the trail by parking on the road. But the cache hider should be wise enough to realize that it is a bad idea, even it it meets the guidelines.

I don't understand the bolded bit. One cache would be perfectly fine, but if the cache owner also placed caches .1 mile away on either side, it would then be a safety issue that should be addressed? What if I place my cache and then two other people place caches nearby? Would that same safety issue need to be addressed then?

 

People get hung up on 'power trails'. People who create 'trails' of caches do not force others to go find them all super fast, ignoring their own safety. Each cache finder must decide if each cache is safe enough for him/her to find. These are individual decisions, just like each individual cache must stand on it's own against the guidelines in order to be listed. The idea that cache seekers have less liability when searching for 'trails' of caches or that individual caches along these these 'trails' need more stringent guidelines than every other cache doesn't make sense to me.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I appreciated reading this entire thread and specifically came to the forum today to look for such a discussion. I believe I am aware of a dangerous cache placement and the local reviewer, as is explained in this thread, OK's the placement because the guidelines do not clearly state anything about safety.

 

In my opinion, however, there may be instances in which a geocache can be ruled "unsafe" and action required. While I agree with all comments here, and whole heartedly believe that, "NO", the review should not be responsible for safety; is that all we can ask?? What if we changed to the question to: "If a reviewer becomes aware of an unsafe cache, should the geocaching guidelines provide instructions for them to take additional action?" I would say "Yes" to that question. For instance, the guidelines could require the owner to disclose the "unsafe" aspect of the cache if it is not obvious. What if the safety issue is not easily recognizable by the geocacher?? Could we then be pleased with such a placement after hearing that a small child is seriously harmed by the unknown danger?? Can the reviewer be aware of all dangers? Of course not. But could/should the geocaching guidelines or rules allow the reviewer to take additional actions when a they do become aware of a danger that might be easily overlooked?? Should the guidelines expect or require the reviewer to take such actions??

 

Here is an example of an unsafe cache placement that is the cause of my exploration into such discussions on this forum: The cache is placed inside the electrical box at the base of an exterior street light. Is that safe? Any electrician will tell you NO, others will understand that it is unsafe as well. Electrical wires are not intended to be touched or wiggled. Especially not repeatedly by people who know nothing of electrical wiring including children. That is why these electrical boxes are locked (though the one in question has been broken).

 

Now, what should we expect of our geocaching community when we learn of a geocache like this? Is "nothing at all" all we can expect? Do we point to the hold harmless clauses if we hear about an electrocuted child? Do we expect a mother on a rainy day to be aware of this safety issue as she begins her search with her children? What if her child sees something and reaches in the electrical box when her head is turned? Is that just her bad luck? Do we not expect anything from the geocaching community and guidelines to help prevent this? Can other caches be equally unsafe and equally difficult to place responsibility squarely on the geocacher? In my mind we can/should draw a distinction between this cache and ones where adults note the clear and present dangers, decide to take the risks, and then sometimes get harmed.

 

Again, my answer is "NO" a reviewer should and can not be "responsible for safety". BUT, "YES" the geocaching guidelines can and should 1) Take safety into consideration AND 2) Instruct the cache owner and reviewer to take action based on some safety issues. The required actions could range from disclosure of safety issues that are not obvious to archiving the cache. Still, in the majority of the cases the status quo should remain if the safety issue is normal and obvious (such as climbing, swimming, etc, etc)

 

Thank you for reading.

Link to comment

I appreciated reading this entire thread and specifically came to the forum today to look for such a discussion. I believe I am aware of a dangerous cache placement and the local reviewer, as is explained in this thread, OK's the placement because the guidelines do not clearly state anything about safety.

 

In my opinion, however, there may be instances in which a geocache can be ruled "unsafe" and action required. While I agree with all comments here, and whole heartedly believe that, "NO", the review should not be responsible for safety; is that all we can ask?? What if we changed to the question to: "If a reviewer becomes aware of an unsafe cache, should the geocaching guidelines provide instructions for them to take additional action?" I would say "Yes" to that question. For instance, the guidelines could require the owner to disclose the "unsafe" aspect of the cache if it is not obvious. What if the safety issue is not easily recognizable by the geocacher?? Could we then be pleased with such a placement after hearing that a small child is seriously harmed by the unknown danger?? Can the reviewer be aware of all dangers? Of course not. But could/should the geocaching guidelines or rules allow the reviewer to take additional actions when a they do become aware of a danger that might be easily overlooked?? Should the guidelines expect or require the reviewer to take such actions??

 

Here is an example of an unsafe cache placement that is the cause of my exploration into such discussions on this forum: The cache is placed inside the electrical box at the base of an exterior street light. Is that safe? Any electrician will tell you NO, others will understand that it is unsafe as well. Electrical wires are not intended to be touched or wiggled. Especially not repeatedly by people who know nothing of electrical wiring including children. That is why these electrical boxes are locked (though the one in question has been broken).

 

Now, what should we expect of our geocaching community when we learn of a geocache like this? Is "nothing at all" all we can expect? Do we point to the hold harmless clauses if we hear about an electrocuted child? Do we expect a mother on a rainy day to be aware of this safety issue as she begins her search with her children? What if her child sees something and reaches in the electrical box when her head is turned? Is that just her bad luck? Do we not expect anything from the geocaching community and guidelines to help prevent this? Can other caches be equally unsafe and equally difficult to place responsibility squarely on the geocacher? In my mind we can/should draw a distinction between this cache and ones where adults note the clear and present dangers, decide to take the risks, and then sometimes get harmed.

 

Again, my answer is "NO" a reviewer should and can not be "responsible for safety". BUT, "YES" the geocaching guidelines can and should 1) Take safety into consideration AND 2) Instruct the cache owner and reviewer to take action based on some safety issues. The required actions could range from disclosure of safety issues that are not obvious to archiving the cache. Still, in the majority of the cases the status quo should remain if the safety issue is normal and obvious (such as climbing, swimming, etc, etc)

 

Thank you for reading.

 

The minute safety becomes a consideration in the review process, it means that reviewers are in effect declaring caches they do publish to be safe. That opens up a huge legal can of worms.

 

Besides, safety is relative. What is a makes safe cache? Place a cache halfway up a 100 ft. high cliff and that would be unsafe for probably 95 percent of all geocachers. But for a skilled and properly equipped climber it would be quite safe.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

That's the devil's game. Placing a cache where people can legally and safely access it, but are highly unlikely to do so, such as a powertrail on a winding road. No fault can be put on the reviewer, because people can access it legally anyhow. What probably will occur is nothing, until an accident or a complaint from law enforcement which will make the entire sport look bad. Since they are allowing powertrails, they probably should adjust the guidelines specifically for this. An individual cache in that spot would seem perfectly OK to me. But a entire series designed to be done quickly is more like a trap.

The only blame would be completely on the cache seeker if they did the trail by parking on the road. But the cache hider should be wise enough to realize that it is a bad idea, even it it meets the guidelines.

I don't understand the bolded bit. One cache would be perfectly fine, but if the cache owner also placed caches .1 mile away on either side, it would then be a safety issue that should be addressed? What if I place my cache and then two other people place caches nearby? Would that same safety issue need to be addressed then?

 

It may be a safety issue, but it cannot be addressed. If there were a few caches nearby, that would be fine also. When there are a long line of them which are part of the same series, by he same hider, then the design is to do them quickly and its a bad idea. But there is nothing that really could be done about it, other than trying to discourage the person not to do hide caches like that. There really needs to be an accident, or some other mayhem to occur first to prove that it was a bad design. Until then, the danger is all in theory. If something did occur, neither the reviewer or Groundspeak would be at fault anyhow.

 

People get hung up on 'power trails'. People who create 'trails' of caches do not force others to go find them all super fast, ignoring their own safety. Each cache finder must decide if each cache is safe enough for him/her to find. These are individual decisions, just like each individual cache must stand on it's own against the guidelines in order to be listed. The idea that cache seekers have less liability when searching for 'trails' of caches or that individual caches along these these 'trails' need more stringent guidelines than every other cache doesn't make sense to me.

 

I agree. But finding legal loopholes and pushing the limits of the guidelines is what triggers more guidelines. If Groundspeak acts proactively to prevent something from happening, there would be an outcry about how they were going overboard. To have the majority agree that it should not be done, there needs to be some form of idiot sacrifice. However, it won't only just be the person that acts stupidly and parks in the street to find the cache that gets hurt. It will be the innocent people that runs into them. And when they find out what they were doing, then the entire game will be hurt. Many people will probably want that anyhow, much like the same ones that slow down and gawk at a fatal accident, or the ones that filled up the colosseum, or watched from the bottom of the Mayan pyramids.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I appreciated reading this entire thread and specifically came to the forum today to look for such a discussion. I believe I am aware of a dangerous cache placement and the local reviewer, as is explained in this thread, OK's the placement because the guidelines do not clearly state anything about safety.

 

In my opinion, however, there may be instances in which a geocache can be ruled "unsafe" and action required. While I agree with all comments here, and whole heartedly believe that, "NO", the review should not be responsible for safety; is that all we can ask?? What if we changed to the question to: "If a reviewer becomes aware of an unsafe cache, should the geocaching guidelines provide instructions for them to take additional action?" I would say "Yes" to that question. For instance, the guidelines could require the owner to disclose the "unsafe" aspect of the cache if it is not obvious. What if the safety issue is not easily recognizable by the geocacher?? Could we then be pleased with such a placement after hearing that a small child is seriously harmed by the unknown danger?? Can the reviewer be aware of all dangers? Of course not. But could/should the geocaching guidelines or rules allow the reviewer to take additional actions when a they do become aware of a danger that might be easily overlooked?? Should the guidelines expect or require the reviewer to take such actions??

 

Here is an example of an unsafe cache placement that is the cause of my exploration into such discussions on this forum: The cache is placed inside the electrical box at the base of an exterior street light. Is that safe? Any electrician will tell you NO, others will understand that it is unsafe as well. Electrical wires are not intended to be touched or wiggled. Especially not repeatedly by people who know nothing of electrical wiring including children. That is why these electrical boxes are locked (though the one in question has been broken).

 

Now, what should we expect of our geocaching community when we learn of a geocache like this? Is "nothing at all" all we can expect? Do we point to the hold harmless clauses if we hear about an electrocuted child? Do we expect a mother on a rainy day to be aware of this safety issue as she begins her search with her children? What if her child sees something and reaches in the electrical box when her head is turned? Is that just her bad luck? Do we not expect anything from the geocaching community and guidelines to help prevent this? Can other caches be equally unsafe and equally difficult to place responsibility squarely on the geocacher? In my mind we can/should draw a distinction between this cache and ones where adults note the clear and present dangers, decide to take the risks, and then sometimes get harmed.

 

Again, my answer is "NO" a reviewer should and can not be "responsible for safety". BUT, "YES" the geocaching guidelines can and should 1) Take safety into consideration AND 2) Instruct the cache owner and reviewer to take action based on some safety issues. The required actions could range from disclosure of safety issues that are not obvious to archiving the cache. Still, in the majority of the cases the status quo should remain if the safety issue is normal and obvious (such as climbing, swimming, etc, etc)

 

Thank you for reading.

 

The minute safety becomes a consideration in the review process, it means that reviewers are in effect declaring caches they do publish to be safe. That opens up a huge legal can of worms.

 

Besides, safety is relative. What is a makes safe cache? Place a cache halfway up a 100 ft. high cliff and that would be unsafe for probably 95 percent of all geocachers. But for a skilled and properly equipped climber it would be quite safe.

 

I understand. I tried to address that with clarity. A cache 100 ft high would fall into the category of an obvious danger that is clearly avoidable and therefore in my status quo (do nothing about it) part of the argument. I felt as though my other questions about safety is the important aspect of my point. Also, I see the the can of worms argument about safety is presented, but do we know that is actually the case?

 

Edit: One more point. I also tried to suggest the action in a way that indeed Does Not mean the reviewers are deemed to declare a cache as safe if published. My point was that if and only if a cache has a serious enough safety issue brought to the attention of the reviewer, that the guidelines give instruction to the reviewer to consider multiple types of actions that would also be presented to the reviewer. Actions for clear and obvious dangers would require no action by the owner or the reviewer.

Edited by schroeder123
Link to comment

I don't think Groundspeak or any of the volunteer reviewers want to be in the business of deciding what is safe enough and what is not safe enough. If even one cache is declined by them for safety issues, that is tacitly stating that all other published caches are deemed "safe" enough. From a legal standpoint that is a far more dangerous position to hold.

 

Cachers come in all shapes and sizes and ages and abilities. Any cacher that does not feel perfectly comfortable or safe in getting a particular cache should avoid it. What is perfectly safe for cacher A is life threatening for cacher B.

 

Parking at A may make a cache hazardous, walking in from B makes it fun and safe. Those familar with basic electrical safety can do one cache safely while children should stay away. An experienced caver can grab this cache safely while a closterphobic will be paralyzed with fear.

 

Way too many issues for any reviewer to start making safety declarations at any level.

Link to comment

If I as a cache seeker become aware of a hidden danger, it is my responsibility to make the hider and other finders aware of this. I can email the owner, I can discuss it in my log or in the case of a missing lock on an electrical box, I can notify who ever is responsible for repairing it. There is no need to get either Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers involved.

Edited by Team Taran
Link to comment

Geocaching.com is a listing service. And listing anything is safe. Using/Doing/Going/Climbing/Parking/Hiking/Whatevering :rolleyes: ... is up to the user and its own responsability.

 

I don't want anyone else taking care of myself. I will do it. Enough of my mother taking care of me when I was a child, I don't want government, agencies ... or reviewers deciding what is safe for me and what is not. I will. What does anyone else know about my skills to decide?

 

No thanks.

Link to comment

I still believe you are approaching the concern from the wrong direction. For the cache located on or in a structure that could be construed as an electrical hazard, it seems like a simple matter to limit such caches to those individuals that have demonstrated proficiency in in some sort of safety training around such hazards.

 

You state that the cliff type danger is a relatively obvious objective danger, yet countless rescues in various parks seem to indicate the contrary is true (referencing Accidents in North American Mountaineering).

 

I see caches near such dangers you have mentioned, and I generally skip them, because I know that I don't have the necessary knowledge and training to be safe in such a situation.

Link to comment

In my opinion, if a cache is placed in a location where it is legal for a pedestrian to be and it is correctly rated, then there is no disregard for the safety of others, so gross negligence is not an issue.

To use Ecylram's example from the previous thread, suppose someone places a cache inches away from a live, exposed high-voltage power line. I'm not a lawyer but, in such a case, I doubt gross negligence disappears simply because a geocacher can legally access the cache.

 

Did the hider know there was a live wire nearby? Did they know it carried high-voltage current that could cause grave bodily harm? How likely are searchers to know that there's a wire nearby? How likely are searchers to know that the wire could cause grave bodily harm? How likely is it that searchers will touch the wire while searching for the cache? Did the hider recklessly disregard this information when they placed the cache? I suspect these are more relevant issues when determining gross negligence.

 

I think each cacher should know their limits. If they can't safety do that cache then they should walk away. If you can't park your car safely and open the door, drive away.

I think we're probably in complete agreement here, although I would word it a bit differently. Safety usually isn't black-and-white, safe vs. unsafe. It's generally a continuum. Simply driving to a cache involves some degree of risk. If one is uncomfortable with how unsafe a cache appears to be, then they should walk away.

 

I would go on to add that although each of us is chiefly responsible for our own safety, I don't believe we are solely responsible. Other people's actions also effect our safety. It's possible people can act negligently when they effect our safety. In certain cases, their actions can constitute gross negligence.

 

I would suggest, with only the most helpful intentions in mind, that it would be wise for Groundspeak to make sure none of their policies cause them or their volunteers to be liable for gross negligence. I'm sure their lawyers can provide very good advice on this matter.

 

I will point out this: a local State Park had a cache placed outside the entrance to the park. Attendance was so high at a recent event at said park that the number of cachers seeking the entrance cache nearly caused several car accidents at the park entrance. The park promptly requested the cache being archived (their request was quickly granted).

I doubt the reviewer could have reasonably foreseen a likely potential for several car accidents, but suppose they could have. Do you think they should have insisted that the cache be placed at a safer location before publishing it? If no, then why is it okay to archive a cache for known safety reasons and not okay to veto publication for known safety reasons?

 

Similarly, in the previous thread, Ecyram wrote:

Having said that, I'd bet that if a Reviewer got notice of a cache sitting inches from a live high-voltage power line they'd disable it and contact the owner.

Again, assuming a reviewer knows about the grave danger in advance, why would one publish it and disable or archive it only after that grave danger is reported by someone? Or, worse yet, after someone is injured or killed? If it's okay to archive for grave safety reasons, then why is it wrong to not publish for grave safety reasons?

Link to comment

We could add a Dangerous Caches guideline for the reviewers to enforce that would allow dangerous caches in the cases where a cache is "wow" enough to justify the danger. :ph34r:

 

Dangerous Caches

Dangerous Caches must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday dangerous places. Since the purpose of a dangerous cache is the thrill of risking one's life, the location should have the ability to cause the death of the prospective finder in a unique way. Electrical boxes, winding roads, cliffs, toxic chemicals, or heavy machinery are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as dangerous caches.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

We could add a Dangerous Caches guideline for the reviewers to enforce that would allow dangerous caches in the cases where a cache is "wow" enough to justify the danger. :ph34r:

 

Dangerous Caches

Dangerous Caches must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday dangerous places. Since the purpose of a dangerous cache is the thrill of risking one's life, the location should have the ability to cause the death of the prospective finder in a unique way. Electrical boxes, winding roads, cliffs, toxic chemicals, or heavy machinery are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as dangerous caches.

 

Alright... who kidnapped Toz? Anybody can see that there is no way this is a true Toz thread. Bad fakery.

 

Anyway... to respond to the fake Toz thread, can we have a custom icon with that? I'd do anything to get another custom icon.

Link to comment

IANAL, but I have to agree with those who think the reviewers shouldn't be evaluating a cache's "safety". If they head down that route, then many (if not most) of the genuine 5-star terrain caches will be archived.

 

Meanwhile, I would expect that many of the caches people are concerned about (e.g., caches hidden among live electrical wiring) violate other parts of the guidelines (e.g., adequate permission, defacing property). The hard cases are situations where there is safe, legal access to the cache, but some cachers instead choose easier access that is unsafe/illegal. I've found caches where part of the challenge is finding safe, legal access to the location. I don't think the cache owner or Groundspeak should be responsible for cache owners taking unsafe/illegal shortcuts.

Link to comment
Meanwhile, I would expect that many of the caches people are concerned about (e.g., caches hidden among live electrical wiring) violate other parts of the guidelines (e.g., adequate permission, defacing property).

Exactly. In the street light example mentioned by schroeder123, someone should log "Needs Archived" mentioning that it's in the base of the street light, and the reviewer will take action, typically disabling the cache until explicit permission is obtained. Why explicit permission? Because the reviewer cannot reasonably assume that the company or municipality which owns/runs the street light, would give permission for a cache there. Interestingly, one of the reasons why the reviewer can safely guess that such permission is unlikely to have been given, is that by giving it, the owners/managers of the street light would be exposing themselves to possible legal action.

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment
Meanwhile, I would expect that many of the caches people are concerned about (e.g., caches hidden among live electrical wiring) violate other parts of the guidelines (e.g., adequate permission, defacing property).

Exactly. In the street light example mentioned by schroeder123, someone should log "Needs Archived" mentioning that it's in the base of the street light, and the reviewer will take action, typically disabling the cache until explicit permission is obtained. Why explicit permission? Because the reviewer cannot reasonably assume that the company or municipality which owns/runs the street light, would give permission for a cache there. Interestingly, one of the reasons why the reviewer can safely guess that such permission is unlikely to have been given, is that by giving it, the owners/managers of the street light would be exposing themselves to possible legal action.

 

I completely agree with you, but it has not worked out that way yet. I contacted the owner and heard nothing back. I then contacted the reviewer and heard nothing back. I then contacted the reviewer a second time and was told that safety is not a not a concern (a view shared by all or most on this thread). The reviewer also believes permission is not being violated because the owner of the cache leases mall space next to the outdoor mall light. I am very positive that this particular cache can and will be archived (unless moved) because the leaser of mall space is not likely to be the owner of the mall itself. But that got me thinking about why safety was not any concern. For instance, if I personally hide a cache in the wiring of my exterior air conditioner, at my home, then I clearly have permission. But I would like to think that a reviewer would not allow that as a location (if and when it is brought to their attention). However, we are very much hearing differently from those who have responded to this topic.

Link to comment

Reviewers are great people who give of their time and sanity to make this game work. What they are not is qualified to determine what is safe and what isn't. No, that is not a slight to them. If they start determining what is safe and what isn't sooner or later someone is going to cut themselves on a lamp skirt and sue the reviewer and GS because the cache wasn't safe. Safety is up to you, the individual. That is why they have the disclaimer. You have been told this could be dangerous.

Link to comment

I still believe you are approaching the concern from the wrong direction. For the cache located on or in a structure that could be construed as an electrical hazard, it seems like a simple matter to limit such caches to those individuals that have demonstrated proficiency in in some sort of safety training around such hazards.

 

You state that the cliff type danger is a relatively obvious objective danger, yet countless rescues in various parks seem to indicate the contrary is true (referencing Accidents in North American Mountaineering).

 

I see caches near such dangers you have mentioned, and I generally skip them, because I know that I don't have the necessary knowledge and training to be safe in such a situation.

 

How would it be a simple matter to limit an electrified cache to individuals that demonstrate proficiency with such hazards? "Here is my cache. Your not allowed to get it unless you show me your electrician certificate." I am new here and I suppose that could be a joke.

 

Also climbing a cliff is indeed an obvious danger. The fact that people fall does not mean they did not understand that gravity exists. They were aware of, and accepted that level of danger, but fell. Most people seem to be saying that they want to be allowed to be free to decide what is too dangerous for them. I understand that point and agree in the vast majority of instances.

Edited by schroeder123
Link to comment

FWIW, it seems to me that the cacher should know that there is an inherent risk in the activity, but there's also unnecessary risks (ie climbing a cliff or hill through wiring). The CO would hopefully have enough sense not to put STUPID risks into the mix, & the cacher should know not to get himself (or herself) into something that they can't get out of.

Link to comment

FWIW, it seems to me that the cacher should know that there is an inherent risk in the activity, but there's also unnecessary risks (ie climbing a cliff or hill through wiring). The CO would hopefully have enough sense not to put STUPID risks into the mix, & the cacher should know not to get himself (or herself) into something that they can't get out of.

 

I can't see where a cliff cache is an unreasonable risk, for someone who is an experienced rock climber.

Link to comment

I propose a whole new category, similar to earthcaches. How about DangerCache? The cache must be extremely dangerous. Such as located in a live bear trap, a shark's mouth, inside the barrel of a loaded shotgun. Hey, maybe when you write your next DangerCache, you beta test them, too. DangerCaches on electric fences that can only be retrieved with wet gloves. DangerCaches placed in the bottom of a pirhana tank. DangerCaches on the edge of icy cliffs. Come on, FTF hounds. Don't you love it? Next, a DangerCache power trail. How about the B.G. Highway? A thousand caches along a 100 mile long strip of hot coals and broken glass.

Link to comment

FWIW, it seems to me that the cacher should know that there is an inherent risk in the activity, but there's also unnecessary risks (ie climbing a cliff or hill through wiring). The CO would hopefully have enough sense not to put STUPID risks into the mix, & the cacher should know not to get himself (or herself) into something that they can't get out of.

 

Who decides what risk is stupid?

 

On a side note what is with that font and color? Feels confrontational.

Link to comment

FWIW, it seems to me that the cacher should know that there is an inherent risk in the activity, but there's also unnecessary risks (ie climbing a cliff or hill through wiring). The CO would hopefully have enough sense not to put STUPID risks into the mix, & the cacher should know not to get himself (or herself) into something that they can't get out of.

Who decides what risk is stupid?

If nobody objects, I will.

Link to comment

I can't see where a cliff cache is an unreasonable risk, for someone who is an experienced rock climber.

 

I can't see where a cache inside of a streetlight is an unreasonable risk, for someone who is an experienced electrician.

 

There is a cache very close to my house. In fact, it is the closest cache to my house. When it was placed, I went to look for it and found that it was located inside of a light pole, with wiring that needed to be moved in order to access it. I made a quick decision to not go after that cache. I posted a DNF with a log explaining why I didn't attempt to retrieve it, and future cachers can see that and choose to go after or not go after the cache.

 

To me, that's the answer. For cachers to be self-policing, and to be responsible for their own safety. Don't go after a cache (gasp!) that's beyond your skill level. Read the logs. I don't know, I much prefer that over putting the responsibility onto the reviewers.

Link to comment

Short answer: NO.

 

Long answer:

Caches are placed to appeal to a wide range of finders. Each cache seeker must be responsible for their own safety, and be able to recognize when they are in over their heads. If they do not know when to turn back, then natural selection will take over.

 

A man's(*) got to know his limitations.

---Dirty Harry

 

*Naturally, this applies equally to the ladies out there...it's just a quote from the movie. ;)

Link to comment

FWIW, it seems to me that the cacher should know that there is an inherent risk in the activity, but there's also unnecessary risks (ie climbing a cliff or hill through wiring). The CO would hopefully have enough sense not to put STUPID risks into the mix, & the cacher should know not to get himself (or herself) into something that they can't get out of.

Who decides what risk is stupid?

If nobody objects, I will.

 

As long as you are deciding what is a stupid risk for you and not what is a stupid risk for me then I have no objection. I decide what is a stupid risk for me. If I haven't made that decision until it is too late it is my fault.

 

This whole argument reminds me of Walmart. Watch some time how many people walk out the front door and into the parking lot without looking. Yeah sure, they have the right of way. That will comfort their surviving family members at the wake.

Link to comment

I can't see where a cliff cache is an unreasonable risk, for someone who is an experienced rock climber.

 

I can't see where a cache inside of a streetlight is an unreasonable risk, for someone who is an experienced electrician.

There is a cache very close to my house. In fact, it is the closest cache to my house. When it was placed, I went to look for it and found that it was located inside of a light pole, with wiring that needed to be moved in order to access it. I made a quick decision to not go after that cache. I posted a DNF with a log explaining why I didn't attempt to retrieve it, and future cachers can see that and choose to go after or not go after the cache.

 

To me, that's the answer. For cachers to be self-policing, and to be responsible for their own safety. Don't go after a cache (gasp!) that's beyond your skill level. Read the logs. I don't know, I much prefer that over putting the responsibility onto the reviewers.

This is where I would question the permission for the hide. There is no way that the property owner would allow this.

Link to comment

I propose a whole new category, similar to earthcaches. How about DangerCache? The cache must be extremely dangerous. Such as located in a live bear trap, a shark's mouth, inside the barrel of a loaded shotgun. Hey, maybe when you write your next DangerCache, you beta test them, too. DangerCaches on electric fences that can only be retrieved with wet gloves. DangerCaches placed in the bottom of a pirhana tank. DangerCaches on the edge of icy cliffs. Come on, FTF hounds. Don't you love it? Next, a DangerCache power trail. How about the B.G. Highway? A thousand caches along a 100 mile long strip of hot coals and broken glass.

 

Been said before, but it (almost always) bears repeating:

 

The most dangerous part of finding 98.6739882415674% of all caches will be the drive (in your vehicle, on public roads) to get there.

Link to comment

I can't see where a cliff cache is an unreasonable risk, for someone who is an experienced rock climber.

 

I can't see where a cache inside of a streetlight is an unreasonable risk, for someone who is an experienced electrician.

There is a cache very close to my house. In fact, it is the closest cache to my house. When it was placed, I went to look for it and found that it was located inside of a light pole, with wiring that needed to be moved in order to access it. I made a quick decision to not go after that cache. I posted a DNF with a log explaining why I didn't attempt to retrieve it, and future cachers can see that and choose to go after or not go after the cache.

 

To me, that's the answer. For cachers to be self-policing, and to be responsible for their own safety. Don't go after a cache (gasp!) that's beyond your skill level. Read the logs. I don't know, I much prefer that over putting the responsibility onto the reviewers.

This is where I would question the permission for the hide. There is no way that the property owner would allow this.

 

This is a fantastic point which, oddly, hadn't occurred to me before.

Link to comment

When I was in the 6th grade, I was named Captain of the Safety Patrol at Rosedale Elementary School in Livonia, Michigan. As such, all the crossing guards (highly qualified and carefully selected and trained 5th and 6th graders who wore white plastic-coated canvas crossing guard shoulder and waist straps, with badges) reported to me. This was in 1967/1968 - the height of the Cold War, and a time of great civil unrest. Every school day began and ended with a deadly game of children versus two-ton automobiles, none of which had anti-lock brakes or inspection stickers.

 

These were serious times, and we took our jobs very seriously.

 

My plastic-coated canvas crossing guard shoulder and waist strap was orange, which identified me as Captain. There was no mistaking who was in charge as I walked from street to street, checking on the other crossing guards.

 

So I think I know a thing or two about safety.

 

Based on my vast experience, I have to say that the Groundspeak reviewers are completely unqualified to decide what is safe, and what is not. As far as I can tell, they don't even own plastic-coated canvas shoulder and waist straps, nor do they have badges.

 

Let's leave the safety aspects of this game up to those who understand safety, shall we?

 

edit: fixed typo. I may know safety, but I can't type correctly.

Edited by cache_test_dummies
Link to comment

I have turned around on hikes because the terrain was getting beyond my abilities. I have driven past roadside caches because I could not see a safe place to park. I have walked away from caches where I felt hunting for them would draw the ire of nearby land/homeowners.

 

I'm not the brightest person on thr planet. If *I* can make these choices I don't see why anyone needs a reviewer involved with deciding what is "safe" or not.

Link to comment
... The reviewer also believes permission is not being violated because the owner of the cache leases mall space next to the outdoor mall light. ...
With each post, your example cache is sounding more and more like a standard LPC and less and less like a dangerous cache.

 

<A quick review of your finds found no LPC finds (surprisingly).>

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

My plastic-coated canvas crossing guard shoulder and waist strap was orange, which identified me as Captain. There was no mistaking who was in charge as I walked from street to street, checking on the other crossing guards.

 

So I think I know a thing or two about safety.

 

 

I wish we had a "favorites" button for forum posts.

Link to comment
... The reviewer also believes permission is not being violated because the owner of the cache leases mall space next to the outdoor mall light. ...
With each post, your example cache is sounding more and more like a standard LPC and less and less like a dangerous cache.

 

<A quick review of your finds found no LPC finds (surprisingly).>

 

Don't be too surprised. You might be forgetting that some of us have not been around the block as many time as your 19,000+ posts imply. The fact is that I have no idea what LPC is or what you are talking about.

 

Edit because I can't spell correctly the first time....

Edited by schroeder123
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...