Jump to content

Should reviewers be responsible for 'safety'?


sbell111

Recommended Posts

... 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....

BP_Cache_Location_4-13-09.JPG

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.

 

+1

 

Agreed. That is a classic!

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

 

Hider: No, thanks. It’s a pretty city park, and the junkies don’t really hassle anybody. They mostly hang out there after dark.

 

Reviewer: Are you aware that several serious, even deadly, diseases can be transmitted by needle prick?

 

Hider: Yes, I am. That’s why I wear leather gloves and suitable overalls when I search for urban caches. I also carry a flashlight. If other people are too stupid or lazy to do likewise, then that’s their problem. Everybody is responsible for their own safety.

 

Reviewer: Could you at least mention this danger in your cache description so searchers are aware of this issue?

 

Hider: No, thanks. When I use Hazard attributes and put warnings in my cache descriptions, it decreases the number of visitors. I’m not responsible for the safety of others.

 

Reviewer: I cannot veto your cache for safety reasons and everything else checks out okay, so I’ll go ahead and publish it. It seems very likely that some geocacher will get pricked by a needle while searching for your cache, but I’ll cross my fingers and hope really, really hard that there are no bad consequences.

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

 

 

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

I constructed my example to focus on the basic points I was making. Who cares how exactly the reviewer became aware of the used needles? Just assume they are aware. Do you think they should publish the cache?

Link to comment

In this case, the reviewer probably would not publish it, as the owner isn't hitting a few keys to make the adventure safer. If it was in the description with proper precautions, then I wouldn't have a problem. Not all GPS devices download the attributes, but most download the description.

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.

Oh, no!! No way, buddy. I'll decide for both of us, or not at all.:mad:
Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

 

 

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

 

Although that scenario is highly unlikely to occur, they are showing that it is possible, and the reviewer can only review it and not approve it.

 

I could hide a 1300 cache powertrail with most of the hides being rather predictable 1/1.5's. I could title them nearly all of the same, and have a nearly identicle cache page for each. However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge. In the end the cacher is only responsible for their own actions, but the hider needs to accept a bit also. The reviewer has no control over monitoring the site, only from feedback or SBAs. If it was a standalone cache it would be much better, but still something that should not be done, and something that would push the guidelines to the very edge..

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

 

Hider: No, thanks. Its a pretty city park, and the junkies dont really hassle anybody. They mostly hang out there after dark.

 

Reviewer: Are you aware that several serious, even deadly, diseases can be transmitted by needle prick?

 

Hider: Yes, I am. Thats why I wear leather gloves and suitable overalls when I search for urban caches. I also carry a flashlight. If other people are too stupid or lazy to do likewise, then thats their problem. Everybody is responsible for their own safety.

 

Reviewer: Could you at least mention this danger in your cache description so searchers are aware of this issue?

 

Hider: No, thanks. When I use Hazard attributes and put warnings in my cache descriptions, it decreases the number of visitors. Im not responsible for the safety of others.

 

Reviewer: I cannot veto your cache for safety reasons and everything else checks out okay, so Ill go ahead and publish it. It seems very likely that some geocacher will get pricked by a needle while searching for your cache, but Ill cross my fingers and hope really, really hard that there are no bad consequences.

 

You really think that would happen. :blink: You can post all day the what ifs and your still not going to show any evidence that the reviewers should be responible for our safety.

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

In this case, the reviewer probably would not publish it, as the owner isn't hitting a few keys to make the adventure safer.

Unfortunately, reviewers apparently aren't permitted to take safety into consideration when they decide whether to publish caches. In the earlier "'Power Trail' question" thread, one reviewer wrote:

Safety is not considered when reviewing caches.

I don't believe caches should be vetoed simply because they might involve some risk. If that was the case, then there wouldn't be any caches published at all.

 

I do believe reviewers should be allowed to take safety into consideration during the review process. If they are aware that publishing a cache is likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to people or property, then they should not recklessly disregard this information. This probably won't happen very often, but if it does, then reviewers should be able to veto the cache, as you suggest.

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....

BP_Cache_Location_4-13-09.JPG

 

Thanks. That is not exactly what I am talking about. If this thread is still active, I'll get a picture of the one that I personally don't find appropriate. I have found two caches before at ones like your pic. I suppose, as you state, they must not be listed as a "LPC" either. (I take LPC to be Lamp Post Cache.

:) ). The one I don't like has a metal plate near the base, the plate has a lock, behind the plate is the wiring and the cache. The lock has been broken.

 

Also, I think I'm pretty much up to date now that most people don't think that a reviewer should ever act on any reports of danger, no matter what the danger. I don't really agree with that, but I got what I wanted, which was to find out more about what other thought.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

because some people can't take responsibility for their own actions, can't exercise any judgment, so they need someone to blame

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

...

You really think that would happen.

That exact scenario? I think it would be extremely unlikely to occur. But that's not the point. I offered this example to help people realize that there might be certain situations where safety should be considered when reviewing caches.

 

Will these situations occur frequently? Of course not. But they can happen. And the likelihood of them happening probably increases as geocaching grows in popularity.

 

If a situation should arise where reviewers might be liable for gross negligence, then I don't think they should be expected to completely ignore safety during the review process.

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

I constructed my example to focus on the basic points I was making. Who cares how exactly the reviewer became aware of the used needles? Just assume they are aware. Do you think they should publish the cache?

 

Thank you CanadianRockies

1st) The example does not have to be very likely to happen. The example’s point is that is would seem odd for a the geocaching community to support a cache that has unknown hidden dangers and provides no value from the danger. (Climbing a cliff can be dangerous but of course one should be allowed to accept such a danger and one gains value from conquering the danger). The example forces (should force) support of the idea that a reviewer should consider safety and to accept that maybe some caches can be identified as a bad idea.

 

2nd) There are certainly bad people on this earth - “CraigsList” killer, tainted Tylonol, etc. As absurd as the above exchange may initially sound, it is not at all hard to imagine that a person would place a cache to purposely hurt someone. Such a person would not engage in the conversation presented above, but rather, as CanadianRockies points out, they would just hide the cache. Now, what should the review do if they found out the situation existed? CanRock was just pointing out that, at some level of information, a conscientious review of cache details can lead to the conclusion that the cache is a bad idea unless altered. And, I believe, has implied that they would support that the reviewer takes action (ranging from disclosure of the danger, to moving, to archiving the cache depending on circumstances) if presented with enough information to do so reasonably after using common sense judgment. INDEED, the reviewer already does this for many other situations and as a results suggest alterations and at other times archives.

 

If the owner disagrees with the reviewer they can go through the appeals process that currently exists.

Edited by schroeder123
Link to comment

Do we need to start putting labels on caches like the labels on Hair dryers: "Do not use while in the bathtub"?

 

If so, then please label the cache page, and don't bother the reviewer. He can't see the cache location from his computer.

 

With safety restrictions there would be no 5 terrain caches.

 

 

I like the attitude of a caching buddy of mine:

 

He went to get a 5 terrain cache alone.

 

He fell down the steep scree and broken glass covered slope. Cracked two ribs, ended up bloody all down one side, shoulder to ankle.

 

Did he sue??

 

The next weekend he came by and picked me up and said some cache had gotten the best of him and we were going to try it again this week.

He hadn't even healed yet.

Link to comment
Hider: No, thanks. (edit for brevity)

How about: Hider: No thanx. Darwin will take care of those folks dumb enough to poke body parts in dark holes without looking first.

 

Every expert in any field, has some fault, or some area that they know very little. The person dumb enough to poke their finger into some place they cannot see could be the same policeman, firefighter, or EMT that rushes to save your life, the lawyer that saves you from being sued unnecessarily, or a very friendly proctologist.

Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

 

 

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

 

Although that scenario is highly unlikely to occur, they are showing that it is possible, and the reviewer can only review it and not approve it.

 

I could hide a 1300 cache powertrail with most of the hides being rather predictable 1/1.5's. I could title them nearly all of the same, and have a nearly identicle cache page for each. However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge. In the end the cacher is only responsible for their own actions, but the hider needs to accept a bit also. The reviewer has no control over monitoring the site, only from feedback or SBAs. If it was a standalone cache it would be much better, but still something that should not be done, and something that would push the guidelines to the very edge..

Did you correctly rate your hypothetical cache as a 5/5?
Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

I constructed my example to focus on the basic points I was making. Who cares how exactly the reviewer became aware of the used needles? Just assume they are aware. Do you think they should publish the cache?

 

Thank you CanadianRockies

1st) The example does not have to be very likely to happen. The examples point is that is would seem odd for a the geocaching community to support a cache that has unknown hidden dangers and provides no value from the danger. (Climbing a cliff can be dangerous but of course one should be allowed to accept such a danger and one gains value from conquering the danger). The example forces (should force) support of the idea that a reviewer should consider safety and to accept that maybe some caches can be identified as a bad idea.

Can you give us an example of such an unknown hidden danger that should prompt such action?

 

The previous examples did not have such 'unknown hidden' danger:

 

  • Cache near a cliff: Known, unhidden danger
  • Cache hidden among wires of lamp pole - known, unhidden danger (I'm pretty sure taht TPTB would archive this cache if evidence is presented to them; not necessarily due to the safety issue, however.)
  • Cache hidden in hole among nearby holes that are seen to contain needles, in a park known for drug activity - known, unhidden danger
  • Cache alongside of busy road - known, unhidden danger

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

I constructed my example to focus on the basic points I was making. Who cares how exactly the reviewer became aware of the used needles? Just assume they are aware. Do you think they should publish the cache?

 

Thank you CanadianRockies

1st) The example does not have to be very likely to happen. The example’s point is that is would seem odd for a the geocaching community to support a cache that has unknown hidden dangers and provides no value from the danger. (Climbing a cliff can be dangerous but of course one should be allowed to accept such a danger and one gains value from conquering the danger). The example forces (should force) support of the idea that a reviewer should consider safety and to accept that maybe some caches can be identified as a bad idea.

Can you give us an example of such an unknown hidden danger that should prompt such action?

 

The previous examples did not have such 'unknown hidden' danger:

 

  • Cache near a cliff: Known, unhidden danger
  • Cache hidden among wires of lamp pole - known, unhidden danger (I'm pretty sure taht TPTB would archive this cache if evidence is presented to them; not necessarily due to the safety issue, however.)
  • Cache hidden in hole among nearby holes that are seen to contain needles, in a park known for drug activity - known, unhidden danger
  • Cache alongside of busy road - known, hidden danger

 

I’ll try.

 

As is seen from my post totals I am not a big poster and am about to end my participation on this subject. I think I have said all that I can personally say and can, at this point, only repeat myself. :tired:

 

I won’t add more examples, rather, I’ll agree with two of yours and disagree to two others:

 

1) Cache near a cliff: Known, unhidden danger.

I Agree. Additionally, I have added that such a cache also provides an intrinsic value to a site seer or a climber.)

2) Cache hidden among wires of lamp pole - known, unhidden danger

Disagree. It is clearly unknown and hidden until the cache is discovered. This is different from a cliff or road that is immediately obvious and not in need of discovery. If a small child finds the cache first, while the parent is looking elsewhere, then the danger is now present and still unknown. Additionally, no reasonable value is added by overcoming the threat of touching live wires and not being electrocuted (not for most people anyway).

3) Cache hidden in hole among nearby holes that are seen to contain needles, in a park known for drug activity - known, unhidden danger

Disagree. Again, it remains unknown and hidden until a needle is discovered. (I bent this example slightly to better match the real world scenario that either the owner was not aware of the needles or has deviously concealed that from the listing). Now, what if I discover a needle by stepping in a grass covered hole and puncturing my foot??? Let me go on record and say that if my kids and I enter a park with heroin needles lying around I can guaran-dadgum-tee that I did not know about the threat. I’ll hope I discover the needles by site, and miss all needles as a carefully exit. The same can’t be said about a cache near a cliff because humans that hike reasonably trust their ability to instantly discover a cliff long before they face the threat walking into it, climbing it, or falling off of it.

4) Cache alongside of busy road - known, hidden danger

I Agree.

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.

The risk is stupid if it's put in a way that people will take it when they have no business taking it.As has been mentioned before, the cliff cache for the the climber that knows what he/she is doing, or if they have experience dealing with the surroundings. There are people who don't know when to stay away. The CO comes into the mix when he doesn't discourage them from trying.

as for the color & font, it is meant to be a bit confrontational, just to get people to get outta their ruts.

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.

The risk is stupid if it's put in a way that people will take it when they have no business taking it.As has been mentioned before, the cliff cache for the the climber that knows what he/she is doing, or if they have experience dealing with the surroundings. There are people who don't know when to stay away. The CO comes into the mix when he doesn't discourage them from trying.

as for the color & font, it is meant to be a bit confrontational, just to get people to get outta their ruts.

You don't have to find every cache. As for the people that don't know when to stay away ............................ Deserve what they get.

 

Stupid should HURT sometimes.

Link to comment

There are people who don't know when to stay away. The CO comes into the mix when he doesn't discourage them from trying.

 

 

you got to be kidding :blink:

 

so if i am stupid is someone else's fault? ...that is just hilarious :lol:

 

i would rather vote them for a Darwin Award

Link to comment

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.

In a word no!, In mote than a word, if some cachers is foolish enought to put him or her self in harms way, that should the fault of the cacher.

Link to comment

It will be interesting to see if this ever comes to litigation.

 

It reminds me in some ways of the Baseball Rule, a much-litigated area of law regarding liability at ball parks. As I understand it in about half the states while everyone who attends a ball game should be aware of the danger of flying bats and balls the venue is still expected to mitigate the worst of the danger (fences or nets in certain high-risk areas, etc.)

 

In Illinois apparently there is no requirement for screens to protect the audience, but if one is provided and it fails then the park could be liable.

 

A good basic explanation can be found here.

 

I would think that the same basic logic would apply to geocaching.

 

This, along with many other good reasons, should show that Reviewers or Groundspeak should not and cannot be responsibility for safety.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
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....

LPC = Lamp Post Cache

Link to comment

Short version, No.

 

Longer version; They can't. To make reviewers responsible for maintaining safety would mean they would have to be able to judge accurately and consistently whether or not any cache failed to meet the accepted criteria. Without physically inspecting each hide they can not judge either accurately or consistently. There are not enough of them to physically inspect every cache. Something like this has to 100% or nothing, anything else dumps liability on Groundspeak. Since 100% is impossible, the only remaining option is nothing.

Link to comment

It would be ludicrous to hold reviewers responsible for cacher's safety. Each of us is responsible for ourselves, we should be aware of our own limitations and surroundings, and act accordingly. The reviewers are only responsible for insuring that Groundspeak guidelines are met. Nothing more.

Link to comment

It would be ludicrous to hold reviewers responsible for cacher's safety. Each of us is responsible for ourselves, we should be aware of our own limitations and surroundings, and act accordingly. The reviewers are only responsible for insuring that Groundspeak guidelines are met. Nothing more.

 

Agreed. We should also encourage one another to cache safely, especailly the new folks.

Link to comment

However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge.

You do raise a very interesting point here that I don't think I have ever heard mentioned before, and that is the issue of dangers due to the hide that could occur to people other than the cacher! Sure, the cacher is responsible for knowing his/her limitations and all of that, but what if they knock loose a boulder that strikes a car down below? I don't have an answer, but I can see the question, and it is an interesting one.
Link to comment

I agree that Groundspeak can't be held responsible for the safety of cache seekers; how could they know that a cache has been placed in a hazardous fashion anyway?

I also realise that seeking any cache could lead to accidents and injuries, no matter how apparently "safe". So is there any situation where there could be a case for complaint? Everyone is assuming that an unexpectedly "dangerous" cache was placed with good intention, but with a lack of attention to potential dangers.

 

What if the CO deliberately set the cache to cause injuries, or at least to tempt people into taking unnecessary risks? Caching does have a cross-section of people taking part, including some (no doubt) who are psychologically disturbed. Perhaps there's a nutcase or two in our game? Hopefully not (except those who are nutty enough to spend a small fortune in the search for little boxes).

Link to comment

However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge.

You do raise a very interesting point here that I don't think I have ever heard mentioned before, and that is the issue of dangers due to the hide that could occur to people other than the cacher! Sure, the cacher is responsible for knowing his/her limitations and all of that, but what if they knock loose a boulder that strikes a car down below? I don't have an answer, but I can see the question, and it is an interesting one.

 

From a local cache that I have still not found:

Please be careful to not dislodge or throw any rocks from the cliffs – on any warm (and dry) weekend, you’re likely to find climbers in the area below you.
Link to comment

Reviewer: In your Reviewer Note, you mentioned that you had spotted numerous used needles in the dark holes surrounding the one where you placed your cache. Do you think you might want to find a nicer location for your hide?

 

 

Your argument is rather disingenuous. First you start by imagining a cache owner who has a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Then you imagine that this same cache owner is going to mention the hazard of used needles in his reviewer note. But of course, the sort of hider who would place a cache among a bunch of used needles, and refuse to mention it on the cache page "because it might reduce the number of visitors to the cache," is not going to mention it in a review note, either.

 

Although that scenario is highly unlikely to occur, they are showing that it is possible, and the reviewer can only review it and not approve it.

 

I could hide a 1300 cache powertrail with most of the hides being rather predictable 1/1.5's. I could title them nearly all of the same, and have a nearly identicle cache page for each. However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge. In the end the cacher is only responsible for their own actions, but the hider needs to accept a bit also. The reviewer has no control over monitoring the site, only from feedback or SBAs. If it was a standalone cache it would be much better, but still something that should not be done, and something that would push the guidelines to the very edge..

Did you correctly rate your hypothetical cache as a 5/5?

 

It would be rated a 5/5, but the rating would be the only visual difference on the page to distinguish it from the others. The attributes would not be used, like the rest of the series. In a series like that, I suspect mostly everyone does not read each individual page, nor writes individual logs.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge.

You do raise a very interesting point here that I don't think I have ever heard mentioned before, and that is the issue of dangers due to the hide that could occur to people other than the cacher! Sure, the cacher is responsible for knowing his/her limitations and all of that, but what if they knock loose a boulder that strikes a car down below? I don't have an answer, but I can see the question, and it is an interesting one.

 

Thats a possibility, as well as having someone slam into the rear of your car while parked on a winding road. After doing 150 caches in a series with little or no traffic, I can see someone getting angsty abou parking in the correct spot, and deciding that stopping in the street with the flashers on would be fine. Next, comes a van loaded with people who are not really paying that much attention because they haven't seen a car on the road within the last hour.

Link to comment

However #666 would be a 5/5 in a very loose boulder field just a few feet from the highway in a spot that no sane person would attempt to rappel to, with loose rocks and no tie off spot above. In addition, there could be a busy highway directly underneath of it. It would get published, but should it? Most cachers would be OK, but a few would invarably knock a few boulders onto cars below, or even slip off the edge.

You do raise a very interesting point here that I don't think I have ever heard mentioned before, and that is the issue of dangers due to the hide that could occur to people other than the cacher! Sure, the cacher is responsible for knowing his/her limitations and all of that, but what if they knock loose a boulder that strikes a car down below? I don't have an answer, but I can see the question, and it is an interesting one.

 

From a local cache that I have still not found:

Please be careful to not dislodge or throw any rocks from the cliffs on any warm (and dry) weekend, youre likely to find climbers in the area below you.

 

Dislodging boulders is a known risk to others. However, most climbing areas are usually "clean" without many loose rocks, and usually there is a sign of activity below, such as a rope tied to a tree. Many climbers wear helmets, but they can be useless if the boulder is large enough.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I don't disagree that stupid should hurt. Heck, I'd LOVE to prune out the stupid people out, but sadly I can't.

 

Everyone is stupid in some way. Prune out all of the stupid people and there would be nobody left. Darwin's law and Murphy's law work hand in hand, and as you get older, you become more suceptible. What are the last words you want to hear?

HAHAHA, look what that idiot did, I guess they deserve it!

 

I came upon an horrific accident scene a few years ago where a newspaper delivery truck was broadsided at an intersection. It was unclear about which car went through the light, but the driver of the truck had been partially ejected out the side window with the truck landing on its side, cutting him in two. There was a crowd of people just standing there gawking. I don't know why people can't just move on after they see what happened. A few teens were there, grinding against each other and making out, which made me a bit nauseated. Much like the kids who party in cemetaries because it makes them feel more alive. Later when they die, other teens will be dancing on their graves.

Link to comment

To make reviewers responsible for maintaining safety would mean they would have to be able to judge accurately and consistently whether or not any cache failed to meet the accepted criteria. Without physically inspecting each hide they can not judge either accurately or consistently. There are not enough of them to physically inspect every cache. Something like this has to 100% or nothing, anything else dumps liability on Groundspeak. Since 100% is impossible, the only remaining option is nothing.

I guess this explains why parks never close hiking trails due to public safety concerns, such as a mother grizzly and two cubs feeding on a moose carcass in the brush a few yards from the trail. If they closed this trail, then they would be liable if someone was attacked on a trail miles away where no bears were known to be present.

 

If park staff keep track of three bears, then they are legally responsible for keeping track of all potentially dangerous wildlife in their jurisdiction: bears, cougars, wolverines, moose, elk, poisonous snakes and spiders, scorpions, bees, etc. Since monitoring 100% is impossible, the only remaining option is nothing.

 

Oh, wait a minute... Parks occasionally do close trails for public safety reasons, and I'm unaware of any of them being sued over some "100% or nothing" liability. They close trails in certain situations because, among other reasons, they don't want to be liable for negligence.

Link to comment

You do raise a very interesting point here that I don't think I have ever heard mentioned before, and that is the issue of dangers due to the hide that could occur to people other than the cacher! Sure, the cacher is responsible for knowing his/her limitations and all of that, but what if they knock loose a boulder that strikes a car down below? I don't have an answer, but I can see the question, and it is an interesting one.

It's all part and parcel of this legal concept called negligence. People generally are obligated to exercise reasonable care when they act (or don't act). If you see a car below, then don't kick any boulders. Don't place caches near live, exposed high-voltage electrical wires. If you're aware that a proposed cache is located near live wires, then don't publish it.

Link to comment

To make reviewers responsible for maintaining safety would mean they would have to be able to judge accurately and consistently whether or not any cache failed to meet the accepted criteria. Without physically inspecting each hide they can not judge either accurately or consistently. There are not enough of them to physically inspect every cache. Something like this has to 100% or nothing, anything else dumps liability on Groundspeak. Since 100% is impossible, the only remaining option is nothing.

I guess this explains why parks never close hiking trails due to public safety concerns, such as a mother grizzly and two cubs feeding on a moose carcass in the brush a few yards from the trail. If they closed this trail, then they would be liable if someone was attacked on a trail miles away where no bears were known to be present.

 

If park staff keep track of three bears, then they are legally responsible for keeping track of all potentially dangerous wildlife in their jurisdiction: bears, cougars, wolverines, moose, elk, poisonous snakes and spiders, scorpions, bees, etc. Since monitoring 100% is impossible, the only remaining option is nothing.

 

Oh, wait a minute... Parks occasionally do close trails for public safety reasons, and I'm unaware of any of them being sued over some "100% or nothing" liability. They close trails in certain situations because, among other reasons, they don't want to be liable for negligence.

 

This site lists hiking trails in WNY. Do you expect them to close those trails because they are dangerous? GC.com is a listing service. They are not the sanctioning body of geocaching. If I wanted I could list my caches in the local newspaper instead of here. Would the local newspaper be responsible for the safety of my cache? What you are expecting is unreasonable.

Link to comment

GC.com is a listing service.... If I wanted I could list my caches in the local newspaper instead of here. Would the local newspaper be responsible for the safety of my cache? What you are expecting is unreasonable.

Let's take the example of a geocacher who places a cache inches from live, exposed high-voltage electrical wires that aren't obvious to searchers. Let's assume the hider mentioned this to the reviewer when submitting the cache for publication. The reviewer approves it and, as easily foreseen, a searcher gets shocked and is severely injured.

 

Yes, if the reviewer had declined to publish, the hider could have posted the coordinates in the local newspaper. But, based on previous experiences, a reasonable person probably would conclude that this is very unlikely to have happened. The law generally doesn't see the world as being black-and-white; it usually must deal in shades of gray.

 

See this explanation of negligence. Its second paragraph reads:

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

As I've said previously, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not offering legal advice here. But I'm suggesting Groundspeak might want to consult their lawyers to determine if they should revise their policy of not considering safety when reviewing caches.

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....

 

LPC = Lamp Post Cache

Link to comment

GC.com is a listing service.... If I wanted I could list my caches in the local newspaper instead of here. Would the local newspaper be responsible for the safety of my cache? What you are expecting is unreasonable.

Let's take the example of a geocacher who places a cache inches from live, exposed high-voltage electrical wires that aren't obvious to searchers. Let's assume the hider mentioned this to the reviewer when submitting the cache for publication. The reviewer approves it and, as easily foreseen, a searcher gets shocked and is severely injured.

 

Yes, if the reviewer had declined to publish, the hider could have posted the coordinates in the local newspaper. But, based on previous experiences, a reasonable person probably would conclude that this is very unlikely to have happened. The law generally doesn't see the world as being black-and-white; it usually must deal in shades of gray.

 

See this explanation of negligence. Its second paragraph reads:

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

As I've said previously, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not offering legal advice here. But I'm suggesting Groundspeak might want to consult their lawyers to determine if they should revise their policy of not considering safety when reviewing caches.

 

You can bet your bottom dollar that they have consulted with lawyers. You can also bet that you, I, and the rest of the caching community will never hear the details of those conversations. You need to worry about what you do and what your liability is. Let Groundspeak worry about theirs.

Link to comment

GC.com is a listing service.... If I wanted I could list my caches in the local newspaper instead of here. Would the local newspaper be responsible for the safety of my cache? What you are expecting is unreasonable.

Let's take the example of a geocacher who places a cache inches from live, exposed high-voltage electrical wires that aren't obvious to searchers. Let's assume the hider mentioned this to the reviewer when submitting the cache for publication. The reviewer approves it and, as easily foreseen, a searcher gets shocked and is severely injured.

 

Yes, if the reviewer had declined to publish, the hider could have posted the coordinates in the local newspaper. But, based on previous experiences, a reasonable person probably would conclude that this is very unlikely to have happened. The law generally doesn't see the world as being black-and-white; it usually must deal in shades of gray.

 

See this explanation of negligence. Its second paragraph reads:

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

As I've said previously, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not offering legal advice here. But I'm suggesting Groundspeak might want to consult their lawyers to determine if they should revise their policy of not considering safety when reviewing caches.

You can create all the hypothetical scenarios you want and you are still wrong, and trust me Groundspeak has already consulted Lawyers many times, they simply cannot take responsibility for the safety of caches, period.

Link to comment

Should Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers be responsible for the safety of cache seekers? Nope.

 

I'm one of the folks who helped write and maintain the Geocachers' Creed. Nowhere does it mention that a cache hunt has to be safe. What does "endanger others" mean? If it meant that you could only put out a 100% safe cache then you'd not be putting one out at all. It's all about managed risk. Everyone but possibly one or two people do that every day. If you drive you are exercising managed risk. A two lane road means vehicles are passing each other in opposite directions at high speed less than an arm's span away from each. If they merely touched the results are severe, possibly deadly. Yet millions of these occurrences successfully happen every day.

 

"Endangering others" is about risk management. By far, most caches are placed in such a way that risk is so small that it can be thought of as not dangerous. Still, you can stump a toe on a curb at that park-n-grab.

 

Some risks are managed where the odd misstep can cause an injury, yet most are able to avoid injury completely.

 

The issue comes from placing caches where the risks can not be managed because they are unknown. It's hard to hide the tree when putting a cache up a tree. (A Sissy favorite.) It's not as if the cachers didn't know he was climbing a tree when he fell out of it.

 

The issue comes from the vast majority of cachers are not experienced, much less hard-core, explorers. How many will check the weather before climbing into a culvert? How many know they live in areas with a lot of abandoned, unprotected, and hidden wells or mines?

 

It's these things that a cache owner might want to consider whether he wants to attract folks to. If he does, then he might want to mention or otherwise warn folks of that they might not ordinarily be aware. There's no need for lengthy disclaimers for being aware of traffic while crossing a street, lift your foot while negotiating a curb, don't text and drive, etc. these are things that folks already know about (though not always follow). Area prone to flash floods. Hidden abandoned mines nearby. Drunk, armed, mean redneck neighbor who hates geocachers. (List not exhaustive.) These might be things that might cause you to reconsider placing that cache or mention on the cache page and let the seeker manage his own risks.

 

Few of my hobbies are completely safe. I have the "battle scars" to prove it. Geocaching has provided a few.

 

Personally, I think all parties including Groundspeak, the reviewers and cache owners, separately, should be liable and that liability follow similar guidelines as the recreational use statutes and nothing more. The big thinkers have already provided guidelines in this respect.

Link to comment

One question that has to be raised is whether or not it's even POSSIBLE to sue Groundspeak. You agreed to there TOS, so there is nothing you can do... Is there?

This is America. Anybody can sue anyone, anytime, for anything.

 

Now, whether that suit could be successful is an entirely different question. If you did try to sue Groundspeak, no doubt part of their defense would be "you agreed to the TOS."

Link to comment

One question that has to be raised is whether or not it's even POSSIBLE to sue Groundspeak. You agreed to there TOS, so there is nothing you can do... Is there?

This is America. Anybody can sue anyone, anytime, for anything.

 

Now, whether that suit could be successful is an entirely different question. If you did try to sue Groundspeak, no doubt part of their defense would be "you agreed to the TOS."

 

That is another small problem... YOU are in America... but many many others are NOT... This site is international in nature.

Laws differ from country to country as well. It will be interesting if a test case ever arises in another venue... some places the laws distribute responsibility differently, some actually are based on rationality. I can think of one I was told of that if you were to slip on an icy sidewalk and hurt yourself during wintertime, the courts would make YOU fully responsible most of the time... it's slippery in winter and you should know that. I can't vouch for that, but it does raise one's hopes.

 

I do think that the one responsibility that WE all share is to make observations in our logs/notes if there is a serious threat to safety found / existing. But it should not be a requirement to list a cache.

 

Doug 7rxc

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