Jump to content

High Risk Caches


KBLAST

Recommended Posts

There are a few caches near us that have come up recently that have created a bit of discussion. The discussion went something like this:

 

This cache is in a dangerous part of the city. I know this is a dangerous part of the city because there is a geocaching policeman who has to deal with situations there often, we have family who live there who would never allow their family to go to that area, and it's an infamous area.

 

Response: People face fears attacking high terrain caches all the time. This is a similar kind of fear that you need to overcome to access this cache. If you are willing to put your life at risk climbing a tree/scaling a cliff/entering a radioactive building/flying to the ISS/etc., then how is this any different?

 

Is there a difference (in your mind) between a dangerous high terrain cache and a dangerous area, and how would you explain this difference?

Link to comment

Well, for one thing, one involves me hurting myself doing something that I enjoy, while the other involves someone else hurting me doing something that I enjoy.

 

If I'm going to get hurt, I'd like to do it myself. I think I owe it to myself.

Link to comment

Simple. If I decide to go after a cache that involves climbing a tree or scaling a cliff, and at some point I decide that it's beyond my skill level, I can choose to stop. If I'm confronted by someone who wants to hurt or rob me, control of the situation and my exposure to risk is no longer in my hands. Makes a big difference in my mind.

Link to comment

Is there a difference (in your mind) between a dangerous high terrain cache and a dangerous area, and how would you explain this difference?

 

Pretty easy difference. Terrain defines the necessary preparation (whether it's physical training, skill training or equipment) to make the grab. There should never be a need to consciously prepare for violence in this sport. Just don't place the cache.

Link to comment

There are a few caches near us that have come up recently that have created a bit of discussion. The discussion went something like this:

 

This cache is in a dangerous part of the city. I know this is a dangerous part of the city because there is a geocaching policeman who has to deal with situations there often, we have family who live there who would never allow their family to go to that area, and it's an infamous area.

 

Response: People face fears attacking high terrain caches all the time. This is a similar kind of fear that you need to overcome to access this cache. If you are willing to put your life at risk climbing a tree/scaling a cliff/entering a radioactive building/flying to the ISS/etc., then how is this any different?

 

Is there a difference (in your mind) between a dangerous high terrain cache and a dangerous area, and how would you explain this difference?

 

The dangerous terrain cache pits you against your capabilities. The outcome depends on your capabilites to: climb cliffs, swim, hike, parasail.

A dangerous area pits you against things beyond your your control.

Oddly, we once had a reputation for being 'fearless'. Hunting caches where no sane person would go. (Okay. How would we know that? Maybe we're just inexperienced? Okay. We've been some strange places and seen some strange things.) So, one day, we parked the cachemobile on the street. Hmmm... That guy is probably a drug dealer. Shouldn't be a problem. Sitting on a chair on the sidewalk, with the trunk of his car open. Not a problem. We come back, and see a car sitting in the road near the cachemobile. This does NOT look good! We could probably fend for ourselves. None of these people look too dangerous. But the unattended cachemobile might easily be a victim. Hopped in and zoomed out of there, never to return. (We did find the cache.) We no longer have the reputation for being fearless.

My answer to your question is: Pitting yourself against your capabilities is one thing. Pitting yourself agaist the unknown is something entirely different.

Link to comment

Well, for one thing, one involves me hurting myself doing something that I enjoy, while the other involves someone else hurting me doing something that I enjoy.

 

If I'm going to get hurt, I'd like to do it myself. I think I owe it to myself.

 

Very well put. I do hope that the description is clear on the extra special situation.

 

This, in fact, was the reason I included the "unsafe" information in my found it log. There was no warning that this was a dangerous area. I knew this was a dangerous area, and I was concerned for those who didn't know (out of towners, people who haven't been around here as long, etc.) I was concerned that a family might show up from out of town and seek this cache, completely oblivious to the dangers they know nothing about.

 

However, it could be stated that a family could show up for a high terrain cache, attempt it, and get severely hurt doing something like that, as well. With a dangerous terrain, you have to take it upon yourself to determine if it is something too dangerous for you to attempt. With a dangerous area, you COULD do the same thing (show up and see that the area looks a bit undesirable). How are these two situations different?

Link to comment

Well, for one thing, one involves me hurting myself doing something that I enjoy, while the other involves someone else hurting me doing something that I enjoy.

 

If I'm going to get hurt, I'd like to do it myself. I think I owe it to myself.

 

Very well put. I do hope that the description is clear on the extra special situation.

 

This, in fact, was the reason I included the "unsafe" information in my found it log. There was no warning that this was a dangerous area. I knew this was a dangerous area, and I was concerned for those who didn't know (out of towners, people who haven't been around here as long, etc.) I was concerned that a family might show up from out of town and seek this cache, completely oblivious to the dangers they know nothing about.

 

However, it could be stated that a family could show up for a high terrain cache, attempt it, and get severely hurt doing something like that, as well. With a dangerous terrain, you have to take it upon yourself to determine if it is something too dangerous for you to attempt. With a dangerous area, you COULD do the same thing (show up and see that the area looks a bit undesirable). How are these two situations different?

 

Well the situations differ in that I can see the tall tree or the steep cliff and recognize the danger pretty easily.

It can be more difficult to recognize the dangers in a bad part of town. Sure, blocks of burned out boarded up buildings are obvious, but not every bad neighborhood looks like "Escape from LA" and I am not Snake Plissken.

Link to comment

Well, for one thing, one involves me hurting myself doing something that I enjoy, while the other involves someone else hurting me doing something that I enjoy.

 

If I'm going to get hurt, I'd like to do it myself. I think I owe it to myself.

 

Very well put. I do hope that the description is clear on the extra special situation.

 

This, in fact, was the reason I included the "unsafe" information in my found it log. There was no warning that this was a dangerous area. I knew this was a dangerous area, and I was concerned for those who didn't know (out of towners, people who haven't been around here as long, etc.) I was concerned that a family might show up from out of town and seek this cache, completely oblivious to the dangers they know nothing about.

 

However, it could be stated that a family could show up for a high terrain cache, attempt it, and get severely hurt doing something like that, as well. With a dangerous terrain, you have to take it upon yourself to determine if it is something too dangerous for you to attempt. With a dangerous area, you COULD do the same thing (show up and see that the area looks a bit undesirable). How are these two situations different?

 

Local knowledge is also important. Tourists (especially from overseas) are not likely to "know" the dangerous local locations.

Link to comment

Local knowledge is also important. Tourists (especially from overseas) are not likely to "know" the dangerous local locations.

I'm fairly sure I know what area, and what recently-hidden caches, the OP is referring to, though I haven't been involved in the discussions. If I'm correct, I spent a good part of my youth in that area. I've seen the changes that area has gone through over the years. It was a decent place to grow up in when I was a kid.

 

By the time I was driving a cab to help get myself through college, the crime rate had increased, and I needed to be cautious when visiting that neighborhood. That trend has continued through the years. Personally, I no longer feel comfortable visiting that area if I can avoid it. The daily news and the traffic on my police scanner convince me it's not the best place to spend my time.

 

I see no justification for subjecting myself to a random act of violence to give myself another smiley or prove my courage to my fellow cachers. It is not my idea of fun. For those reasons, I added the new caches to my Ignore List soon after they were published.

 

I'm a local and I'm familiar with the territory. I can make this decision easily based on what I know. A cacher from out of town isn't as likely to be aware of the situation they might find themselves in, and the descriptions on the cache pages, at least from my reading of them, don't provide that information.

 

Then again, there's no guideline that says the cache page has to provide any information other than what's required to get the cache published. I've seen caches published that had exactly nothing in the description area. Personally, if I were foolish enough to hide a cache in that sort of high-crime area, and I learned that a cacher had been robbed or assaulted or worse as a result of looking for it, I would never forgive myself.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

in an unfamiliar area. i always read the logs... last year i was in SF walking towards our hotel, luggage and GF in tow using my fancy phone gps to guide me to the right streets, i looked up and realized that folks were openly smoking crack on the street. it wasnt until later that the SO told me we walked threw the "tenderloin" area and it being the famous for its desparity. the logs are there for a reason, if your encounter in an area provokes certain aspects note them. dont be a drama queen and always be aware of your surroundings.

Link to comment

in an unfamiliar area. i always read the logs... last year i was in SF walking towards our hotel, luggage and GF in tow using my fancy phone gps to guide me to the right streets, i looked up and realized that folks were openly smoking crack on the street. it wasnt until later that the SO told me we walked threw the "tenderloin" area and it being the famous for its desparity. the logs are there for a reason, if your encounter in an area provokes certain aspects note them. dont be a drama queen and always be aware of your surroundings.

The cachers I fear for the most are the ones who pride themselves on never reading either the cache descriptions or the logs. They seem to prefer the challenge of simply following the arrow and going for the cache with as little information as possible. I used to know a good number of cachers who played the game this way, but they seem to be fewer in number lately. Natural selection at work, perhaps?

 

--Larry

Link to comment

If I'm not familiar with where I'm at and it seems sketchy I don't always search for the cache. But a degree I'm desensitized to sketchy neighborhoods from living in them for so many years. I don't anymore but did spend a lot of time living in them. So sometimes I just don't notice a certain degree of sketchy because it falls with in my comfort zone.

 

What may be a bad neighborhood to some people may not be to other people depending on their own comfort levels.

Link to comment

I think no matter what the danger, whether its terrain or from humans, it should be mentioned on the cache page. Let the cache hunters decided for themselves. For example I have a cache in a high crime area and the cache page says "This cache is in a high crime area, so take appropriate precautions". It is a popular cache with lots of finds so apparently that doesn't dissuade people from seeking it.

Link to comment

If I'm not familiar with where I'm at and it seems sketchy I don't always search for the cache. But a degree I'm desensitized to sketchy neighborhoods from living in them for so many years. I don't anymore but did spend a lot of time living in them. So sometimes I just don't notice a certain degree of sketchy because it falls with in my comfort zone.

 

What may be a bad neighborhood to some people may not be to other people depending on their own comfort levels.

As they say, knowledge is power. The only sane way to make that judgment call is to know, in advance, what you're getting into.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

We've come across situations when traveling where the Nuvi has routed us through some neighborhoods that were questionable. My wife and I have gotten much better over the years at communicating to each other about when we get a bad feeling about a place and we just keep right on motoring without stopping. It's not something we can identify, it's just that "gut feeling" that says not here". When we didn't have that level of communication figured out yet we ended up at a really bad hotel in San Francisco, but that's a story for when you catch me at a caching event. :laughing:

 

More on topic, I'll echo what others have said. The difference is between what I do to myself vs. what someone else does to me. I'll take my chances with a back country hike and having the choice to pull the pin when I reach my limits.

Link to comment

I think no matter what the danger, whether its terrain or from humans, it should be mentioned on the cache page. Let the cache hunters decided for themselves. For example I have a cache in a high crime area and the cache page says "This cache is in a high crime area, so take appropriate precautions". It is a popular cache with lots of finds so apparently that doesn't dissuade people from seeking it.

+1

 

Now if we can just convince cache hiders to go along with this...

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Simple. If I decide to go after a cache that involves climbing a tree or scaling a cliff, and at some point I decide that it's beyond my skill level, I can choose to stop. If I'm confronted by someone who wants to hurt or rob me, control of the situation and my exposure to risk is no longer in my hands. Makes a big difference in my mind.

 

Yep...that sums it up!

Link to comment

Do you live in Camden, NJ? :ph34r:

 

Yikes... many years ago - 1991-93 - I had to live there during my most unfortunate first marriage. Nothing bad ever happened to me there (aside from the aforementioned most unfortunate first marriage), but yeah, that's extremely high on my list of places I would never, ever cache if I still lived in the state. No love lost there (on many levels - LOL!) when I moved back home to GA in 1999! ;) The aquarium is cool and all (ever see the episode of "Undercover Boss" featuring the aquarium?? Way cool!) but.. yeah, no.

Link to comment

Do you live in Camden, NJ? :ph34r:

 

Yikes... many years ago - 1991-93 - I had to live there during my most unfortunate first marriage. Nothing bad ever happened to me there (aside from the aforementioned most unfortunate first marriage), but yeah, that's extremely high on my list of places I would never, ever cache if I still lived in the state. No love lost there (on many levels - LOL!) when I moved back home to GA in 1999! ;) The aquarium is cool and all (ever see the episode of "Undercover Boss" featuring the aquarium?? Way cool!) but.. yeah, no.

 

Oh my, I'm sorry you had to live there for a few years! I'm imagining it's probably grown worse since then as they cut a huge amount of the police force and fire department recently...yikes.

 

Under "things to do in Camden" it usually goes:

 

1. Visit aquarium

2. Walk along waterfront

3. GTFO

 

Caching must not be on that list because I don't see any placed in the main part of the city.

Link to comment

Do you live in Camden, NJ? :ph34r:

 

Yikes... many years ago - 1991-93 - I had to live there during my most unfortunate first marriage. Nothing bad ever happened to me there (aside from the aforementioned most unfortunate first marriage), but yeah, that's extremely high on my list of places I would never, ever cache if I still lived in the state. No love lost there (on many levels - LOL!) when I moved back home to GA in 1999! ;) The aquarium is cool and all (ever see the episode of "Undercover Boss" featuring the aquarium?? Way cool!) but.. yeah, no.

 

Oh my, I'm sorry you had to live there for a few years! I'm imagining it's probably grown worse since then as they cut a huge amount of the police force and fire department recently...yikes.

 

Under "things to do in Camden" it usually goes:

 

1. Visit aquarium

2. Walk along waterfront

3. GTFO

 

Caching must not be on that list because I don't see any placed in the main part of the city.

 

There are many wonderful places I WOULD go caching in NJ, as there are many beautiful locations in the state...but that's not one of them. It's really sad, because at one time decades ago, it was a booming, thriving, lovely city. I hate how its gone downhill. Poverty is such a difficult trap to escape once its got you. There are many good people in Camden who just want to live peacefully and better their neighborhood... but poverty and crime have made it extraordinarily difficult.

 

Sorry for sliding onto a totally different topic, LOL! Pine barrens, I'd cache in... sea shore, definitely. Northern NJ mountain area, you betcha!

Link to comment

I've lived in some pretty sketchy areas, so maybe I'm just de-sensitized. But I do have two observations:

 

1) You don't have to find them all. Whether the cache makes you uncomfortable because it's on a cliff and you don't know anything about rock climbing, or it's in a neighborhood that is setting off your mental alarm bells, the result is the same: don't go there.

 

2) I do have to wonder what the CO was thinking when he placed the cache. But then, I'm old-school enough to always wonder "why did he bring me here?" On the other hand, some really scary neighborhoods have some pretty nifty stuff in them. It wasn't geocaching, but a similar activity brought me to a spot in Atlanta that felt kind of dangerous. It's where Auburn Avenue passes under I-85, about four blocks West of the MLK memorial. There's a tiny, nameless park there that is filled with fabulous structures. A homeless man spent an hour showing me all of the hidden Masonic symbols in the park. If I lived in Atlanta, I'd create a puzzle cache around this park.

Link to comment

It wasn't geocaching, but a similar activity brought me to a spot in Atlanta that felt kind of dangerous. It's where Auburn Avenue passes under I-85, about four blocks West of the MLK memorial. There's a tiny, nameless park there that is filled with fabulous structures. A homeless man spent an hour showing me all of the hidden Masonic symbols in the park. If I lived in Atlanta, I'd create a puzzle cache around this park.

 

I don't live in ATL but travel thru ATL for work (into buckhead). Must confess I'm intrigued by this! ;) Not intrigued enough to set out a puzzle cache myself, but intrigued that I might consider checking it out (with a group, LOL!)

Link to comment

Simple. If I decide to go after a cache that involves climbing a tree or scaling a cliff, and at some point I decide that it's beyond my skill level, I can choose to stop. If I'm confronted by someone who wants to hurt or rob me, control of the situation and my exposure to risk is no longer in my hands. Makes a big difference in my mind.

 

Yep...that sums it up!

 

Of course, this is all theoretical, since I'm too old and out of shape to climb trees and there aren't any cliffs within 200 miles of here :). We do have our share of sketchy neighborhoods though.

Link to comment

in an unfamiliar area. i always read the logs...

 

+1. When I travel I always read some of the logs to get an idea for where I might want to spend some time geocaching.

 

While searching for some caches that I might want to find near Johannesburg, South Africa I read the logs of one that was close to the hotel I was staying in. One of the finders wrote that when he was searching for it he was robbed at knife point. Other caches in the area mention coming across someone laying in the bushes that they thought might be a victim of an attack and another mentioned hijacking. I decided not to do any geocaching while I was there for two days.

Link to comment

There are a few caches near us that have come up recently that have created a bit of discussion. The discussion went something like this:

 

This cache is in a dangerous part of the city. I know this is a dangerous part of the city because there is a geocaching policeman who has to deal with situations there often, we have family who live there who would never allow their family to go to that area, and it's an infamous area.

 

Response: People face fears attacking high terrain caches all the time. This is a similar kind of fear that you need to overcome to access this cache. If you are willing to put your life at risk climbing a tree/scaling a cliff/entering a radioactive building/flying to the ISS/etc., then how is this any different?

 

Is there a difference (in your mind) between a dangerous high terrain cache and a dangerous area, and how would you explain this difference?

I think there is a BIG difference between the two. When you get to the dangerous terrain you can choose not to do the cache if becomes too hard. When your in a dangerous area just being there could be too late. It only takes seconds to get carjacked or robbed and there's nothing you can do. People that live in these areas can tell an outsider right away.

 

IGNORE list is a wonderful thing.

Link to comment

There are a few caches near us that have come up recently that have created a bit of discussion. The discussion went something like this:

 

This cache is in a dangerous part of the city. I know this is a dangerous part of the city because there is a geocaching policeman who has to deal with situations there often, we have family who live there who would never allow their family to go to that area, and it's an infamous area.

 

Response: People face fears attacking high terrain caches all the time. This is a similar kind of fear that you need to overcome to access this cache. If you are willing to put your life at risk climbing a tree/scaling a cliff/entering a radioactive building/flying to the ISS/etc., then how is this any different?

 

Is there a difference (in your mind) between a dangerous high terrain cache and a dangerous area, and how would you explain this difference?

I think there is a BIG difference between the two. When you get to the dangerous terrain you can choose not to do the cache if becomes too hard. When your in a dangerous area just being there could be too late. It only takes seconds to get carjacked or robbed and there's nothing you can do. People that live in these areas can tell an outsider right away.

 

IGNORE list is a wonderful thing.

 

When you are heading to a cache and find that you are entering a questionable area turn around and leave. Like you said,"IGNORE list is a wonderful thing."

Link to comment

The reason I posted this thread was because the caches were placed by an account that has 0 finds and only the 3 hides (so far). All three hides are in varying degrees of high-crime areas. The first one wasn't HORRIBLE, and was a VERY clever hide. The second was also clever, but was in a VERY volatile area. I pointed this fact out in my found it log, stating not to bring family here and to come in a group. The CO responded by saying you should attempt the cache alone and that people who put their lives in danger through high terrain caching face a similar fear as those who would attempt his caches. This statement got me thinking about the situation. I posted the note in my log for the very reasons mentioned above - I want people who read through logs to know what they are in for. The CO then posted a now retracted response indicating that I was wrong in my assessment.

 

I still think I did the right thing, but it did get me thinking. I once lived in Englewood in Chicago for a few months and rode the CTA to work up north of Wrigley. I remember having someone "teach me the ropes" to keep me safe. I'm sure where I lived and what I did every day would have been scary to many. I'm also not planning to take my wife and kids to that area of town anytime soon. But, by the same token, my 9 year old is not going to climb 60 feet up into a tree, either, but I'll do that MYSELF with my harness and ropes.

 

Some comments on here have stated that you "like to take your life into your own hands". As I was debating this in my mind, I said the same thing. But then I thought, "I may claim I'm taking my own risks - but what if the bark of the tree is slippery? What if a once sturdy branch breaks? What if a rock falls? What if the radiation suit fails? What if the rocket to the ISS blows up on reentry?" I know these are unlikely and would be tragic, but are you REALLY taking your own life into your own hands, or are you leaving a number of things to chance? Is this REALLY all that different from walking into a high crime area?

 

I still stand by my contention that COs should post information or indicate somewhere what you are getting yourself into, and I applaud the person who mentioned the "high crime area" on his cache page. I think before this situation took place I was 100% adamantly against placing caches in those kinds of places... but maybe I just need to let cachers get their thrills and just put these on the ignore list for myself.

Link to comment

Do you live in Camden, NJ? :ph34r:

 

Maybe the terrain should include the risk of being stabbed by broken 40s and syringes. Set it to a 5 terrain and include "wear Hazmat suit and carry Smith and Wesson" Or maybe the cache owner should just find a better location all together.

 

Drive through Camden (usually on the expressway, though) every day. Was FTF on this cache:GC2BHCP as well as another Camden cache in the series but I've been mistaken for a LEO more than once and I did everything I could to minimize my personal danger.

Note photo I took at GZ.

 

Frankly, the cache at nearby Pyne Poynt Park ( GC1Z1ER ) is more bothersome. The CO added the appropriate cautionary notes to the page after some comments on the SJG board and upped the terrain rating to 5. That's all good but the cache now has people going for it because of the notoriety. <_<

Link to comment

A dangerous area is just that... Dangerous.

 

I don't care where it is, a dangerous area could be any of these... the deep woods, in a cave, an old mining area, a trail along a cliff face, mossy covered rocks, a busy street, a dark alley, a place where gangs hang out, a pot field, a Meth lab (in a house or woods), a place that doesn't like strangers or people with a certain skin color or hair style. If you go there you can get hurt. There are many places where if you don't have the skills, knowledge, or "look" like you belong, you will get hurt or killed. Equipment failure has nothing to do with this. There are a lot of different reasons why a CO would place a cache in a given location. However one reason might be to see if anyone is dumb enough to go after it. And there is also the real possibility that the CO really wants to see people get hurt.

 

If the environment is such that you could get hurt do to no fault of your own then that is a dangerous area and the icon danger-yes.gif should be used and then on the cache page should state why the CO believes this.

 

The other icon that should be use is for dangerous animals dangerousanimals-yes.gif. For me a dangerous animal could be a Snake, a Bear, Cougar / Mountain Lion, a Wolf, Moose, Elk, Deer, attack Dogs, or Man to name just a few. It does matter how skilled or trained you are. If any of these want to attack you, there is a good chance you will get hurt or even killed.

 

Just because one person believes an area or animal is dangerous, doesn't mean that everyone will agree. Who you are, what you know and what you look like does play a lot into why one person will get hurt and the next one won't. I don't see any place as "too dangerous" for a cache to be placed. But there are a lot of caches that I won't do at this time because I don't feel safe doing them. And there are some caches I will never do because I'm not that stupid.

Link to comment

Do you live in Camden, NJ? :ph34r:

 

Maybe the terrain should include the risk of being stabbed by broken 40s and syringes. Set it to a 5 terrain and include "wear Hazmat suit and carry Smith and Wesson" Or maybe the cache owner should just find a better location all together.

 

Drive through Camden (usually on the expressway, though) every day. Was FTF on this cache:GC2BHCP as well as another Camden cache in the series but I've been mistaken for a LEO more than once and I did everything I could to minimize my personal danger.

Note photo I took at GZ.

 

Frankly, the cache at nearby Pyne Poynt Park ( GC1Z1ER ) is more bothersome. The CO added the appropriate cautionary notes to the page after some comments on the SJG board and upped the terrain rating to 5. That's all good but the cache now has people going for it because of the notoriety. <_<

 

If NJ allowed concealed carry...maybe that second one could be an interesting excursion. Otherwise I'll probably stay farther north in NJ where I'm a little more familiar with the area.

 

I witnessed a drug deal going down near the GZ of one nearby in Allentown yesterday. Terrain on it is already 5 so it can't get any worse! :laughing:

Link to comment

I am also a local of the caches in question. And I have had a brief (also ongoing) dialogue with the cache owner, who is obviously a well-versed, experienced cacher using a new account. Here are my thoughts in the situation in general and to some of the specific subtleties brought up by the original poster.

 

1. In general, terrain and high-crime "danger" factors are completely different. As many have stated, you choose the danger in a tree. You may not choose the danger another chooses to inflict upon you in a high-crime area.

 

2. The cache owner of these specific hides has made the subtle (in public) and overt (in private) statement that people feel they are unsafe in these areas due to preconceived notions, aka racism. I have lived in high-risk areas where I was the target of racial crime and I have a fairly vast personal history with ethnicities outside of my own. And one thing I have learned is: danger is danger, no matter the color, gender, ideology, or economic background. These areas are dangerous and it has nothing to do with racism. The cache owner equates this danger with the danger one faces while doing terrain caches. I couldn't disagree more, but everyone is entitled to their opinion on what danger they think one should endure while caching. The problem is that these caches are designed to be extremely difficult and those who have found them have spent hours doing so. Putting yourself in a high-crime area for hours is not a good situation to be in. So the question is, why would a person create a separate account and only put this type of hide out there? In my opinion, the point seems to be to show the general geocacher that they hold preconceived biases toward people or areas. While I am sure this is true for every human, I am not sure the proper place to play out this type of "lesson" is in a dangerous geocaching area. Wihtout mentioning it in logs. In fact, any mention has been that the areas are ok and not the opposite. I'll just cut this point off here because it has become too tangential.

 

3. The original poster has stated he has questioned his own beliefs about the chance-vs-choice element of terrain caching. Is it really a choice if a limb breaks while you're in a tree or is that the luck of the draw? I have to disagree with him when he wonders if it's not a choice. That uncertainty is PART of the choice you make with high terrain. You cannot go into a cache expecting a physical object to hold up for eternity. That is just an inleuctable reality of our visible world (haha). There is still a major distinction between high-crime and terrain caches. High-crime areas are shown to be high-crime areas by high repeatability of problems. There may be a freak occurence where the tree breaks under your foot, but high-crime areas are deemed to be that way because of the non-random reality of danger. That, to me, is the differnce. You are at the mercy of free-thinking individuals.

 

My concern is for people who do not know the area and note a 5.0 difficulty cache that has been found by 7 user names in the first few days. Well, there were that many names because the cachers went in with the group mentality for safety. I am willing to have discussions about racial biases until the cows come home. But that topic is completely outside the realm of geocaching. What is in the realm of caching is safety.

Edited by blandestk
Link to comment

Caches typically don't last long in high crime areas anyway. There's always someone watching, so the caches get muggled pretty quickly.

 

These caches will not be taken. They require special equipment and unless you know to be looking for them, you will never even know they are there. They are not even really prone to accidental discovery.

Link to comment

I agree completely with Blandestk's take on the situation, though I haven't personally spoken with the cache owner in question. Very well spoken, by the way.

 

This all reminds me of a recent coinage: There are the unknowns you know, and the unknowns you don't know.

 

If I were foolish enough to still be climbing trees (:P, I would have a body of information that would enable me, at least to a certain extent, to evaluate the situation and decide whether to take the various risks involved in climbing the aforementioned tree. I'm capable of weighing the odds and making an intelligent choice, simply because I know trees and what is involved in climbing them.

 

If a cache is hidden in a high-crime area, my capability of making an intelligent decision as to whether it's worth the risk is contingent on having in my possession sufficient accurate information to make that decision. (In the case of the three caches under discussion, I've made that decision: They all have permanent places on my Ignore List. Most of my caching is solo caching, and I decided it's not worth the risk to spend that much time alone in that sort of neighborhood.)

 

If I wasn't a local to the area, and the cache page gave no hint of the situation I'm likely to find myself in (other than the 5-star difficulty rating, which could mean just about anything; it usually just means an evil, as in clever, hide), I could be subjecting myself to a situation I would never want to find myself in.

 

I can't speak for other cachers, but I'm not accustomed to having to check out the crime rate of an area before deciding whether to look for a cache there. It's just not something I feel I should have to deal with, and it's not my idea of a good time.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

But your perceived threat and the threat other people perceive are different. I'm quite sure we would be on completely different pages on the continuum of what activity makes us feel uncomfortable in an urban environment. I'm very desensitized to it. You're not as comfortable as I am in there.

 

Really if people are doing urban caching in general they should be cautious regardless of neighborhood. Even in the best neighborhoods a lot of parks have shooting galleries or other illicit and dangerous activities going on. Nothing screams "mug me" more than someone looking out of place like a tourist, not paying attention to their surroundings, and staying pretty much stationary in an area. It's not like the criminals look at the map and go oh geez I'm slightly out of the "bad" neighborhood can't commit a crime here.

 

And then when I think about this as well I'm reminded of a girlfriend of mine who lived in Sarejevo while they were in the midst of their war there. We were talking about war torn bad neighborhoods when I was going to be visiting over there and she looked at me and in all seriousness said, "You know...people go around forgetting this a home to someone." In the US all those bad neighborhoods are home to someone and many of the people in those neighborhoods are good people.

 

If you don't want to do the caches then don't do them. But I don't need to be told a neighborhood is iffy on a cache page or with an attribute I'll never look at because I can figure it out when I get there. Just like many many other people can.

Link to comment

Yes, perceptions vary wildly and are based on subjective opinions. However, crime statistics are not subjective. It is a distinct reality that certain areas have higher incidences of crime. There is no perception involved.

 

I'm not sure what type of parks you have where you live, but there are no "shooting galleries" in any parks I am near.

 

The point is not to argue about perceptions of "bad" areas. I realize people live in those areas. I have lived in those areas. Good people do populate those types of zones. But the fact remains that areas are labled high-crime because they have high amounts of crime. It's as simple as that.

 

If you are designing a cache to make a person spend a lot of time in a high-crime area, I think it is respectful to mention the type of area in the cache. It is, in my opinion, dangerous to mention the area is actually "safe" when in reality it is not, as the statistics tell us. In the end, you are right, it us up to each person to be safe and make their own judgments. When you do not have the information to do so, however, I feel it is dangerous to lead someone there with no notice.

Link to comment

Yes, perceptions vary wildly and are based on subjective opinions. However, crime statistics are not subjective. It is a distinct reality that certain areas have higher incidences of crime. There is no perception involved.

 

I'm not sure what type of parks you have where you live, but there are no "shooting galleries" in any parks I am near.

 

The point is not to argue about perceptions of "bad" areas. I realize people live in those areas. I have lived in those areas. Good people do populate those types of zones. But the fact remains that areas are labled high-crime because they have high amounts of crime. It's as simple as that.

 

If you are designing a cache to make a person spend a lot of time in a high-crime area, I think it is respectful to mention the type of area in the cache. It is, in my opinion, dangerous to mention the area is actually "safe" when in reality it is not, as the statistics tell us. In the end, you are right, it us up to each person to be safe and make their own judgments. When you do not have the information to do so, however, I feel it is dangerous to lead someone there with no notice.

 

High crime is extremely subjective since you have absolutely no context to the statistics. We have an extremely high crime area where I live now. It's almost all domestic violence, drunken disorderlies and drug crimes. The crimes can be as benign as prostitution and drug crimes in high crime areas and vary into crimes against people not known to the perpetrator (which even in high crime areas are pretty rare).

 

I have not been to a park anywhere I've been to date where in the day time I don't see evidence of it being used for people to use drugs in or if I'm there at night (and I've spent a lot of after dark time in parks because of my weird sleep schedule at times) illicit sexual activities. Doesn't matter how good the neighborhoods are. Parks are gathering places for troublesome people. But again I lived in that culture for awhile and I tend to notice things like that. Which also desensitized me to a lot of stuff. Personally when I was at my peak of hooliganism I only would target middle and upper middle class neighborhoods and shopping areas as people tend to let their guard down there and leave a lot of valuables in unlocked areas.

 

It is all about perception based on the individual's comfort level. I would give someone urban caching the same advice I would give someone hiking in bear territory where they may encounter habituated bears (or the bad neighborhood of the hiking/camping world) take standard precautions for universal problems and make healthy choices. And if something makes you feel weird leave.

 

If you are here looking for support for a witch hunt against a local cacher you won't find it from me and from the recent posts it appears that you are looking at wanting that especially when you want to dismiss any discussion about why it may not be necessary to note that stuff.

Link to comment

A witch hunt? Let's not get too outrageous here. Is advocating putting some notice into a cache page really a witch hunt? I have not asked for the caches to be archived or the cache owner to be banned. In fact, I'm probably more in favor of the caches than most local people. I enjoyed the hide I have found. All I wished for was a bit of info in the description so the unknowing cacher can beware. The only things I have differed on when it comes to the cache owner are the implications of racism, his or her insistence that the areas are not dangerous, and that terrain dangers are not the same as area dangers. I am quite ok with caches being wherever an owner wants to put them. So if advocating for some info in the description makes me a witch hunter, then I guess I'm a witch hunter.

 

Dismissing any discussion to the opposite argument? Couldn't I say you're doing the same thing? ARE YOU ON A WITCH HUNT??

 

Seriously, though, by the danger = danger argument, I could turn around and say crime = crime, no matter what crime it is. Usually, however, "high-crime" refers to violent crime, with theft sometimes thrown in. You might be more comfortable in areas where there's JUST domestic violence, drug crime, and prostitution, but I would say those types of areas should probably demand some note in the descriptions as well. We'll just have to disagree on that point, I suppose.

 

Again, I have no idea what types of parks you frequent, but I don't have that issue.

 

One last thing:

 

It is more likely that you will die in a car crash on your way to the back woods than by being attacked by a bear.

 

In the Yellowstone National Park in the U.S., statistics show that you are more likely to drown than to be attacked by a bear. In the period between 1839 and 1994, 101 people died from drowning but only 5 people were killed by grizzly bears.

 

Far more people are victims of violent crime!

Link to comment

There are a few caches near us that have come up recently that have created a bit of discussion. The discussion went something like this:

 

This cache is in a dangerous part of the city. I know this is a dangerous part of the city because there is a geocaching policeman who has to deal with situations there often, we have family who live there who would never allow their family to go to that area, and it's an infamous area.

 

Response: People face fears attacking high terrain caches all the time. This is a similar kind of fear that you need to overcome to access this cache. If you are willing to put your life at risk climbing a tree/scaling a cliff/entering a radioactive building/flying to the ISS/etc., then how is this any different?

 

Is there a difference (in your mind) between a dangerous high terrain cache and a dangerous area, and how would you explain this difference?

I think there is a BIG difference between the two. When you get to the dangerous terrain you can choose not to do the cache if becomes too hard. When your in a dangerous area just being there could be too late. It only takes seconds to get carjacked or robbed and there's nothing you can do. People that live in these areas can tell an outsider right away.

 

IGNORE list is a wonderful thing.

 

When you are heading to a cache and find that you are entering a questionable area turn around and leave. Like you said,"IGNORE list is a wonderful thing."

 

Sorry, but that's not the same thing. The dangerous terrain is EASILY visible, and quite obvious barring quick sand or the like. A dangerous area of the other variety does not always make itself so readily apparent. Nice looking areas can have bad people lurking too.

Link to comment

Far more people are victims of violent crime!

There's a statistic. I'd bet if you looked at it as a percentage of visitors to each place, more people are killed out in the woods than in these high-crime areas. Of course animal attacks may be fairly rare so you still might be more likely to be shot in a botched robbery than attacked by a grizzly, but overall I'd bet that you're safer in a bad neighborhood.

 

It's very interesting to see how people estimate risk. I think I will pass on the dangerous caches in Beverly Hills for now. :unsure:

Link to comment

But your perceived threat and the threat other people perceive are different. I'm quite sure we would be on completely different pages on the continuum of what activity makes us feel uncomfortable in an urban environment. I'm very desensitized to it. You're not as comfortable as I am in there.

 

Really if people are doing urban caching in general they should be cautious regardless of neighborhood. Even in the best neighborhoods a lot of parks have shooting galleries or other illicit and dangerous activities going on. Nothing screams "mug me" more than someone looking out of place like a tourist, not paying attention to their surroundings, and staying pretty much stationary in an area. It's not like the criminals look at the map and go oh geez I'm slightly out of the "bad" neighborhood can't commit a crime here.

 

And then when I think about this as well I'm reminded of a girlfriend of mine who lived in Sarejevo while they were in the midst of their war there. We were talking about war torn bad neighborhoods when I was going to be visiting over there and she looked at me and in all seriousness said, "You know...people go around forgetting this a home to someone." In the US all those bad neighborhoods are home to someone and many of the people in those neighborhoods are good people.

 

If you don't want to do the caches then don't do them. But I don't need to be told a neighborhood is iffy on a cache page or with an attribute I'll never look at because I can figure it out when I get there. Just like many many other people can.

I've been reading this thread, and trying to find the right words to say what was on my mind. Everything I wrote sounded too snarky, and I thought the topic was too important to write something that would be dismissed as my usual snarky self.

 

So, thank you for writing what I was thinking, much more eloquently than I was able to say it.

Link to comment

 

It's very interesting to see how people estimate risk.

 

It's one of those things that people are notoriously not good at. In most urban high-crime areas, you are far more likely to be injured in an automobile accident while driving to the cache than you are to be a crime victim during your visit.

Link to comment

If the environment is such that you could get hurt do to no fault of your own then that is a dangerous area and the icon danger-yes.gif should be used and then on the cache page should state why the CO believes this.

Good idea.

 

in an unfamiliar area. i always read the logs... last year i was in SF walking towards our hotel, luggage and GF in tow using my fancy phone gps to guide me to the right streets, i looked up and realized that folks were openly smoking crack on the street. it wasnt until later that the SO told me we walked threw the "tenderloin" area and it being the famous for its desparity. the logs are there for a reason, if your encounter in an area provokes certain aspects note them. dont be a drama queen and always be aware of your surroundings.

Ok lets see...

 

SF = San Francisco?

GF = Girl Friend?

SO = Superfluous Orator?

Link to comment

Funny, All of these caches (mentioned by the OP) are hidden in city parks, not on street corners where prostitutes stand, nor are they in back alleys that are unlit etc.

The difficulty nor the terrain ratings for these caches reflect the area, those ratings are based solely on the hides themselves. There was no intention to place these caches in high crime areas, there was no point to be made. The whining of local cachers, and chastisement of the locations are what ultimately created this impression. When starting this series, I looked at google maps for city parks that are void of geocaches. I went to those parks and hid geocaches. People got butt hurt, and whined and cried about my disregard for their safety.

These are parks where families go for lunch, where children play, where people recreate. I refuse to call an area unsafe, or dangerous, just because some geocachers feel threatened by just being there. If you feel that way, I suggest you sit down and think about why you feel that way -and dont tell me it is because of all of the crime ratings you have read for a particular area. If that were the case, and it bothered you so much, why would you ever find yourself in that area?

As it happens these are not the areas where cachers generally live. There is a difference. Is it race? for some folks possibly. Is it the condition of the homes surrounding these parks not being as nice as the homes in which you live? possibly. It could be a multitude of things, everyone has (at least) some form of subtle bias. When a comment about "very tanned muggles" is made on my cache page, I raise an eyebrow... Do you?

 

There is a skill involved in climbing things, there is a skill involved in swimming in strange waters, I think ChokeCherry has this skill. I have this skill.

 

Terrain danger, and location danger are similar in that they are both perceived danger. Are they the same? Of course not. If you do not want to be in an area for whatever reason that you convince yourself to not want to be there, then don't go there.

 

The Witch.

Link to comment

A little off topic but, A couple of years ago a friend and I did a cache in a city park. Looked perfectly safe to me. We got the cache no problem. I sat at a picnic table to figure out the next stop. Then we continued on. A couple of days latter I see the picnic table I sat at on the news. Less than 24 hours after I sat there, someone was murdered at the picnic table. I emailed the cops and told them we did not see anything supecious and that there was a cache in the tree about 15 feet from the picnic table. The cops missed the obvioulsy out of place bird house. It turned out some guy was mad at his ex wife and just found a random lady to take it out on. So while I would not want caches in unsafe places, even safe places can have bad things happen.

Link to comment

If it is dangerous in any way at all, I want to see information about that on the cache page. That way I can make an informed decision.

 

I don't read all the logs for every cache I put into my GPS.

If it is a new cache there won't even be any information in the logs about the dangerous area, and there's always got to be a first person to write the first log. What if that person shows up with their 3 year old child?

 

Put it on the cache page.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...