Jump to content

A question about the dangerous area attribute


cezanne
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I'd like to ask a question about the dangerous area attribute. I am wondering where the limit is between a cache that is too dangerous for being acceptable and a cache that is dangerous, but acceptable. A cache in a climbing route seems ok to me (provided that no other special circumstances are present that might change the situation). I am not so sure, however, about a cache on a 3D archery parcours where the cache is hidden in direct view of one of the life-size game targets and where the parcours is set up in a way that the archers cannot see well what happens around them.

Is it sufficient to mark such a cache with the "dangerous area" attribute and to mention the danger in the cache description?

Of course everyone is welcome to reply. I am however particularly interested into the opinion of reviewers.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

being at the wrong end of a target range and not in full view ? sounds dodgey to me

 

I referred to the surroundings and not only about the target itself.

Typically cachers move around while searching. The terrain is not flat and there are ditches, depressions, small hills etc.

 

The focus of my question was anyhow about the meaning of the dangerous area attribute.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

being at the wrong end of a target range and not in full view ? sounds dodgey to me

 

I referred to the surroundings and not only about the target itself.

Typically cachers move around while searching. The terrain is not flat and there are ditches, depressions, small hills etc.

 

The focus of my question was anyhow about the meaning of the dangerous area attribute.

 

Cezanne

 

It sounds like the cacher would need to be within spitting distance of a target that archers might be shooting at, correct? If so...wow...that's plain stupid.

 

And of course permission was explicitly granted if this is on private property, right?

Link to comment

 

It sounds like the cacher would need to be within spitting distance of a target that archers might be shooting at, correct? If so...wow...that's plain stupid.

And of course permission was explicitly granted if this is on private property, right?

The actual question posed I think is wrong. The highlighted portion above is the proper question. I cannot fathom a range manager/owner that would knowingly allow such a placement. If such is the case, that manager needs re-"placement".

 

Also, if such a cache exists, it should be reported to reviewer, as this is info he/she was not supplied with.

Link to comment

 

It sounds like the cacher would need to be within spitting distance of a target that archers might be shooting at, correct? If so...wow...that's plain stupid.

And of course permission was explicitly granted if this is on private property, right?

The actual question posed I think is wrong. The highlighted portion above is the proper question. I cannot fathom a range manager/owner that would knowingly allow such a placement. If such is the case, that manager needs re-"placement".

 

I do not think that permission has been granted. Moreover I do not think that the club who has set up the archery parcours owns the land - they will however have asked for permission.

On the other hand, more than 90% (conservatively estimated - in reality it should be more) of the caches in Austria do not have permission. In my region more than 65% of the forest areas is privately owned. From that point of view the majority of caches would have to be archived and geocaching would cease to exist.

 

I did not intend to discuss about permission for caches on private property here, but was interested into the question for what type of caches the dangerous area attribute is intended.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

With two exceptions, volunteer cache reviewers do not "review" the appropriate use or omission of relevant attributes. Cache owners are encouraged to select appropriate attributes to help advise of conditions or to assist finders who filter their pocket query results, but many listings with no attributes are published every hour.

 

(Exception 1: The "Beacon" attribute is required for so-called "Chirp" caches that cannot be found without using a compatible GPS receiver. Exception 2: Groundspeak asks reviewers to encourage the proper use of the Handicapped-accessible attribute for one-star terrain caches, but publication is not delayed over this issue.)

 

Rather, the issue with the OP's example cache and other similar caches is whether adequate permission is in place for the cache. If I see a statement saying "cache is behind a shooting range - do not hunt if you hear gunfire," it is not reasonable for me to assume that permission is in place like I normally do, so I would likely ask. But, this assumes that the issue is disclosed in the writeup. Reviewers don't visit the cache locations prior to publication.

Link to comment

I'd like to ask a question about the dangerous area attribute. I am wondering where the limit is between a cache that is too dangerous for being acceptable and a cache that is dangerous, but acceptable. A cache in a climbing route seems ok to me (provided that no other special circumstances are present that might change the situation). I am not so sure, however, about a cache on a 3D archery parcours where the cache is hidden in direct view of one of the life-size game targets and where the parcours is set up in a way that the archers cannot see well what happens around them.

Is it sufficient to mark such a cache with the "dangerous area" attribute and to mention the danger in the cache description?

Of course everyone is welcome to reply. I am however particularly interested into the opinion of reviewers.

 

Cezanne

 

As a bow hunter and a cacher I can tell you right now if I ever found a cache hidden in such a stupid place I would destroy the thing when I retrieved my arrows! I don't care the president himself gave you permission, YOU NEVER HIDE THINGS ON A TARGET! Yes us bow hunters check the area where we shoot before we let that string go but that does not make it OK for you to encourage fellow idiots to be messing around a target!

Link to comment

I'd like to ask a question about the dangerous area attribute. I am wondering where the limit is between a cache that is too dangerous for being acceptable and a cache that is dangerous, but acceptable. A cache in a climbing route seems ok to me (provided that no other special circumstances are present that might change the situation). I am not so sure, however, about a cache on a 3D archery parcours where the cache is hidden in direct view of one of the life-size game targets and where the parcours is set up in a way that the archers cannot see well what happens around them.

Is it sufficient to mark such a cache with the "dangerous area" attribute and to mention the danger in the cache description?

Of course everyone is welcome to reply. I am however particularly interested into the opinion of reviewers.

 

Cezanne

FWIW, adequate warnings about the danger would be enough to keep me away. With the addition of a "dangerous area" attribute, I still won't go. Even with no warnings at all, I'm aware of my surroundings, and will independantly decide whether or not to procede. But a cache, say, at the target end of an archery range should probably be archived, not just have a more stern warning.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I'd like to ask a question about the dangerous area attribute. I am wondering where the limit is between a cache that is too dangerous for being acceptable and a cache that is dangerous, but acceptable. A cache in a climbing route seems ok to me (provided that no other special circumstances are present that might change the situation). I am not so sure, however, about a cache on a 3D archery parcours where the cache is hidden in direct view of one of the life-size game targets and where the parcours is set up in a way that the archers cannot see well what happens around them.

Is it sufficient to mark such a cache with the "dangerous area" attribute and to mention the danger in the cache description?

Of course everyone is welcome to reply. I am however particularly interested into the opinion of reviewers.

 

Cezanne

Reviewers don't review for safety. There is no "safety" guideline that would be violated by placing this cache.

 

However, it would almost certainly violate the "permission" guideline. I can't imagine that the land manager of an archery course would allow a cache to be placed there.

Link to comment

"Dangerous Area" can mean something as simple as the cache is alongside a busy highway.

 

Danger does not disqualify a cache (I love to refer to the hetavirus-infected abandoned nuclear plant cache in Maryland) but dangers should be explicitly spelled out in the description, Difficulty/Terrain ratings should be appropriate, permission really should be sought, and you should really make things clear with the Reviewer.

 

That said, if you have a cache placement idea that is dangerous you should stop and ask yourself "Why am I placing this cache in this specific spot?" As insane as I think the aforementioned Maryland 10/10 nuclear cache is, it is a very unusual location with merits to visiting. Likewise, a rock climbing cache presents a difficult but reasonable challenge that may also include a great scenic view. On the other hand, placing a cache at the end of a gun or archery range would probably always be an unnecessary risk. If you felt the range was worth bringing to the attention of others it surely be placed elsewhere in a safer location that would still accomplish the goal of bringing people to the location with risking them being shot.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

I'd like to ask a question about the dangerous area attribute. I am wondering where the limit is between a cache that is too dangerous for being acceptable and a cache that is dangerous, but acceptable. A cache in a climbing route seems ok to me (provided that no other special circumstances are present that might change the situation). I am not so sure, however, about a cache on a 3D archery parcours where the cache is hidden in direct view of one of the life-size game targets and where the parcours is set up in a way that the archers cannot see well what happens around them.

Is it sufficient to mark such a cache with the "dangerous area" attribute and to mention the danger in the cache description?

Of course everyone is welcome to reply. I am however particularly interested into the opinion of reviewers.

 

Cezanne

I would post a NA log with the reasons. This will bring it to the attention of the reviewer. The "dangerous attribute" assumes that the danger is an acceptable level which this cache doesn't seem to be.

Link to comment
a cache on a 3D archery parcours where the cache is hidden in direct view of one of the life-size game targets and where the parcours is set up in a way that the archers cannot see well what happens around them.

Is it sufficient to mark such a cache with the "dangerous area" attribute and to mention the danger in the cache description? ....I am however particularly interested into the opinion of reviewers.

 

Per Keystone, the presence or absence of attributes is not relevant to cache review (other then the Beacon example).

 

Whether no permission = adequate permission is the issue. Whether the reviewer questioned that is likely dependent upon how the listing read at the time of review, and whether there was any additional information in the notes.

 

On the other hand, more than 90% (conservatively estimated - in reality it should be more) of the caches in Austria do not have permission. In my region more than 65% of the forest areas is privately owned. From that point of view the majority of caches would have to be archived and geocaching would cease to exist.

 

Some percentage of caches in the U.S., where both Keystone and I review, do not have permission. They're reviewed to the standard of trusting that the cache owner's judgement that no permission = adequate permission. That assumption fails in situations where it seems very likely that if the property owner (whether public or private) knew about the cache, they would want it removed. I'd say that's the case with your archery parcours example. The archery club has permission to set up their course, the cache owner most likely does not have permission to place his cache there.

 

I did not intend to discuss about permission for caches on private property here, but was interested into the question for what type of caches the dangerous area attribute is intended.

 

There's no additional information available to reviewers on the intent of the attributes.

Link to comment

I'd like to ask a question about the dangerous area attribute.

My solution to this same quandary was to utilize the "Dangerous Area" attribute on all of my caches where the seeker stands a fair chance of being injured or killed while hunting it, if they are not prepared for the hazards in that particular environment. I should probably point out that most of my caches bear that attribute.

Link to comment

Indeed, situational awareness is all-important in cases like this.

You can post all the warnings and attributes you like, but all that depends on the seeker actually reading your write-up.

If you are the kind of person who will become severely depressed if a cacher gets injured (or actually dies) as a result of your cache, you probably shouldn't place it.

 

Some would say it would merely be natural selection in action.

Link to comment

I'd like to ask a question about the dangerous area attribute.

My solution to this same quandary was to utilize the "Dangerous Area" attribute on all of my caches where the seeker stands a fair chance of being injured or killed while hunting it, if they are not prepared for the hazards in that particular environment. I should probably point out that most of my caches bear that attribute.

 

I'm curious as to the nature of the danger you are concerned about near your caches. It seems to me that there's a big difference between the remote possibility of a 'gator or water moccasin being in the vicinity, and the very real danger of an arrow zipping quietly past me because I had my head down looking for the cache while an archer was shooting at a nearby target.

 

Risk that can be regulated is much more acceptable than risk that is capricious. If I go rock climbing, I can set up my anchors and protections carefully, and be quite reasonably assured of being safe. Doing the dance of the drunken bee around an archery target opens me up to very real and highly unregulated risk, which tells me that cache shouldn't be there.

Link to comment

Risk that can be regulated is much more acceptable than risk that is capricious. If I go rock climbing, I can set up my anchors and protections carefully, and be quite reasonably assured of being safe. Doing the dance of the drunken bee around an archery target opens me up to very real and highly unregulated risk, which tells me that cache shouldn't be there.

It's also possible to place caches that put not only geocachers in danger (a risk they might be aware of and accept) but also non-geocachers (a risk they might be unaware of).

 

If I place a cache on a blind corner of a winding mountain road with no shoulders, then a geocacher might stop and search for it. A car coming around that blind corner might end up ramming the stopped vehicle or swerve to avoid it and end up going over a cliff.

Link to comment
a cache on a 3D archery parcours where the cache is hidden in direct view of one of the life-size game targets and where the parcours is set up in a way that the archers cannot see well what happens around them.

Is it sufficient to mark such a cache with the "dangerous area" attribute and to mention the danger in the cache description? ....I am however particularly interested into the opinion of reviewers.

 

Per Keystone, the presence or absence of attributes is not relevant to cache review (other then the Beacon example).

 

Whether no permission = adequate permission is the issue. Whether the reviewer questioned that is likely dependent upon how the listing read at the time of review, and whether there was any additional information in the notes.

 

First of all, thank you very much for your very helpful reply. Second, I'd like to point out that in the specific example that caused me to start thinking further about the dangerous

area attribute, the attribute has not been set at the time of the review and the archery parcours has not been mentioned explicitly. Neither the reviewer who published the listing nor the first visitors of the cache did have proper information about the area at all. When the first complaints arrived and some cachers wrote that they have been told by locals that the area is very dangerous (even the term life-threatening has been used), the owner of the cache (a beginner) added the dangerous icon attribute and deleted NM logs that asked him to move the cache to a safer place.

 

My intent was not to question the fact that the archery cache has been published. My intent was two-fold: I was curious in general about the dangerous area attribute and as the specific cache is concerned I had in mind I wanted to make up my mind whether I should write a needs archived log to draw the revievers attention to the cache. I am quire reluctant to write such logs, but have decided to write one for this cache.

 

There's no additional information available to reviewers on the intent of the attributes.

 

Thanks for this clarification as well.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I was curious in general about the dangerous area attribute and as the specific cache is concerned I had in mind I wanted to make up my mind whether I should write a needs archived log to draw the revievers attention to the cache. I am quire reluctant to write such logs, but have decided to write one for this cache.

 

This could've/should've/would've been done in a heartbeat, IMO. Many, if not most are reluctant to file a NM, but there are the occasional times when hesitation could be fatal. I think this cache in question would qualify.

Link to comment

If you still unsure about the cache...especially with the "recent" updates...send an email to your reviewer and ask them to take a second look...maybe include what you have seen.

 

As has been pointed out by two reviewers so far...things change from first read to most recent...maybe the local reviewer needs to take a second look on this one now that the page has changed and more info is available.

Link to comment

I hope this cache in question (on an archery course) is no longer there, this weekend I had an extremely close 'near miss' with a geo-cacher who had deliberately ignored all warning signs that he was walking onto an archery course, and he walked straight across the front of a target I had an arrow aimed at. Had I not seen him in time and 'took down' my arrow, I dread to think what may have happened?

 

Geo-cachers may think they know what they are doing, and the risks involved, however you cannot take into account the actions and re-actions of other people who may not even be aware you are in the location, field archery courses are, contrary to the obvious, located in woods and forests and by their very nature, are not open and bright places where all or any movement would be seen.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...