Judging danger means legal liability?

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

You seem to think the assertion you make is relevant to Groudspeak's liability. Why wouldn't it also be relevant to yours? Goose. Gander.

 

CR designed the cache, hid it, wrote the description, and submitted it to GS to be published.

 

GS just published it.

 

If there is any liability it would more likely be CR's than GS's.

[+blu-rob]

Being from the UK It seems that litigation is higher on your list of priorities than it is on mine. Safety is very important and over here, judging danger is called "risk assessment". I'll not go into the details but please feel free to check out EHS in the UK. Enjoy your debate but please try to relax, it's only a discussion.

[Andronicus]

So how does the terms of use that we all agreed to when we signed up for an account come in to play here.

 

I think that if GS advertised safety ("and the best part is that our volunteer reviewers insure that all caches are safe, so you don't need to fear for your kids safety when searching for any cache"), there would be liability. However, GS does the exact opposite, in the TOU, they specifically say that there is no guaranty of safety, and that you the cacher needs to assess the safety of the situation, and make a decision yourself whether the cache is safe enough for you.

 

With this in mind, I don't think that there is much difference in the legal liability weather they archive some "dangerous" caches, but not others.

[+Sol seaker]

 

I sure would be interested in hearing why this is such a persistent issue for you. Any particular reason?

Some people seem to use this apparently incorrect claim as an excuse to ignore safety. They suggest Groundspeak shouldn't do anything about safety because it will expose them to lawsuits. I think it's an invalid excuse.

 

Okay, since this thread was created off of something I've said I guess I should respond as much as I really don't want to get caught up in a debate.

 

Since you live in Canada and not the US I can see how this wouldn't make sense to you.

 

Here in the US people are sue happy. We're coming from a totally different perspective, you've got to keep that in mind.

 

So, that being said, there is no way Groundspeak can check each and every cache for safety.

If Groundspeak were to start saying that they are checking caches for safety, then that implies that the caches that you search for are safe.

So that means that if little Johnny falls out of the tree trying to get the cache, and Groundspeak checks the caches for safety, then they implied that cache is safe. Johnny's parents are going to sue. Maybe not in Canada, but here in the US they will.

 

I'm really not interested in this debate enough for me to go researching references for you, but you might try looking up how often people get sued in the US (it would be interesting for you to compare it to the rate in Canada). Also look up "frivolous lawsuits" in the US. Find some site which lists statistics on frivolous lawsuits in the US.

Since you are unaware of the sueing atmosphere in the US you will be shocked.

 

And if Groundspeak started archiving caches for safety a whole lot of people would be really upset because people LIKE searching for dangerous caches.

There are some popular caches for rock climbers and scuba divers.

 

Heck I even got a 5 terrain cache that was at the bottom of a nasty hill/cliff that was scree covered that was dangerous as all get out. (my friend came back from his first try on that one covered with blood and two cracked ribs) That was an awesome cache!!

 

Dangerous caches: we like 'em, we need 'em

[+tozainamboku]

I don't think the OP is suggesting that Groundspeak archive all dangerous caches. He even says that "obvious" dangers are reasonable and the the "non-obvious" dangers where some might get hurt because they expected that location to be safe are what need to be controlled. He has become frustrated because the standard response seems to be that if Groundspeak archived "non-obvious" danger caches, people would expect that the "obvious" dangers are really safe and then sue Groundspeak if they get hurt.

 

I agree with him that this argument doesn't seem to hold water.

 

Instead I think the issue is what does he mean by "obvious" and "non-obvious". I think "non-obvious" is a code word for "places where the OP thinks caches shouldn't be placed".

 

As it turns out, caches in these places can often be archived based on the existing guidelines. Most often the issue is going to be permission. If it is really unsafe for someone to be there, there is a question as to whether the land owner or manager would give permission. There are also questions about how the actions of geocachers searching for the cache might be perceived by the public. There are guidelines that might apply here as well.

 

Now there are certainly some gray areas where the OP may feel a cache is inappropriate, but Groundspeak and the reviewers feel there is adequate permission and that geocachers can legally access the cache without causing undo suspicion. Sometimes, a concerned cacher might try to show that the cache has inadequate permission by reporting the cache to the land owner/manager. When this happens people say that geocaching gets a black-eye. But in truth what it means is that Groundspeak and the reviewers get a chance to adjust the guidelines to handle similar situations in the future. It may be reasonable to discuss specific situations where reviewers are too lax in assuming permission. I don't think we need a danger guideline to deal with the locations the OP is concerned about.

[Clan Riffster]

You seem to think the assertion you make is relevant to Groudspeak's liability.

You're claiming that my starting a sentence with "Some would argue" is me making a statement of fact? Really? Dude. I've read your posts. You're just not that dense. Seriously. This is not some veiled attempt at a snarky insult. I truly mean that you are much brighter than someone who would take "1 + 1" and answer "Blue". I was offering my opinion. Nothing more. And, unlike you, I'm not delving into the world of make believe, offering my opinion as fact. When someone pretends to be obtuse, I tend to look for ulterior motives. I suspect, at this point, that you are only arguing to hear yourself argue. You've got some kind of Jihad going on, and you simply refuse to let go even when you've been proven wrong.

 

Incidentally, you still haven't posted any relevant links or citations that disprove my theory.

[AZcachemeister]

If caches that were 'too dangerous' were not published, then caches that were published could be construed to be 'perfectly safe'.

Why? When parks close trails they deem to be "too dangerous," nobody assumes all the other trails are "perfectly safe." As I noted (and linked) in my original post, parks expose themselves to legal liabilities when they do NOT warn people of dangers.

 

If someone gets hurt hunting one of these 'perfectly safe' caches, then Groundspeak could be in a mmmmm, 'poor' legal position.

Care to provide a link or citation to support this claim? I'm sure many parks would be interested to learn about this legal liability. Does this liability also apply to illegally placed caches? Groundspeak rejects some caches that they determine are illegally placed. Can we therefore construe that all their active caches are "perfectly legal?" And is Groundspeak liable?

 

Considering that it is possible to slip , fall, and break your neck while visiting your own mailbox, it is probably true that there can never be a 'perfectly safe' Geocache.

No argument there. Which is why, if Groundspeak rejects/archives one cache as unacceptably dangerous, it would be silly to assume they consider all active caches to be safe. Furthermore, Groundspeak representatives don't inspect each cache. Plus, conditions change. Groundspeak wouldn't be certifying caches as safe, just rejecting certain caches as unacceptably unsafe.

 

Just my personal musings on the subject at hand.

 

I would presume a park system has rangers who will check the trails (etc.) for safe conditions, and act accordingly for the safety of the public.

Groundspeak (as far as I know) do not have a team of rangers (nor even ninjas) to inspect each cache location for safety.

 

We live in a litigious society, sad but true.

No, I don't have any links, because (as yet, and as far as I know...which isn't very far) it has never happened...

 

BUT

 

I would bet your paycheck that:

 

IF it could be proven that Groundspeak had denied a listing on the grounds that it was too dangerous,

 

AND IF

 

someone got injured looking for a cache that was published because it was not deemed to be 'too dangerous'

 

THEN

 

Groundspeak could be held liable for approving a cache that was published on the grounds that it was 'safe'.

 

I think this pretty much covers the whole issue:

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

Geocaching.com is owned and operated by Groundspeak Inc. Information in the Geocaching.com database is updated regularly. Neither Groundspeak Inc., nor any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc. warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, portions may be incorrect or not current. Any person or entity that relies on information obtained from Geocaching.com does so at his or her own risk.

 

Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a Cache. Be prepared for your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution.

 

In no way shall Groundspeak Inc. nor any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc., be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages arising out of, or in any way connected with the use of this website or use of the information contained within.

 

This website is for personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, excerpt, distribute, transmit, publish, license, create derivative works from, or sell any information, or services obtained from this website.

 

Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders.

 

Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com.

 

Groundspeak Inc. reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which this website is offered.

 

Advertising with Us

[knowschad]

I just wish that you would come clean about why you have a dog in this fight. This is at least the third time that I've seen you take up this issue, and I have never seen you budge an inch on it in those three conversations. OK, so you're right, and everybody else is wrong. Why doesn't that settle it for you? Why do you have to bring it up time after time? Did something happen to you, or to one of your caches, or to somebody you know? Nobody clings to an issue like this without some motivating factor. Spill the beans, please. We're all dying to know.

[+d+n.s]

I doubt this helps, but in my line of work we deal with a lot of rigging and hanging of light and speakers. If one falls and kills someone, the company can definitely be held liable. However, if they can prove I KNEW it was dangerous and DID NOTHING to stop it. I can be held liable. At least as I understand it, I'm legally bound to either fix something dangerous to my customers or tell the authorities.

 

I assume its something similar with Groundspeak.

 

When I consider this (assuming It's been explained correctly to me for course) it makes complete sense to me that GS would draw a line in the sand and say "We just post the stuff. We don't try to determine if it's dangerous."

If GS DID get mixed up in that sort of thing, it would be the equivalent of putting, "No murderers in here. GUARANTEED!" or "only honest business men in here." on the front of a phone book to my mind.

By remaining a listing site that makes very few guarantees, it probably protects them from being accused of leadng cachers into dangerous situations. Think about all the release forms you have to sign before sky diving or whatever. GS doesn't wanna deal with that.

It's just a listing site.

 

Getting involved in saying some caches are dangerous would definitely open you up to some lawsuits I would assume in exactly the way AZcachemeister is saying.

 

 

As an adult I independently judge how dangerous any activity I'm about to engage in is. I don't need Groundspeak to tell me something is dangerous. I can get there and figure that out on my own as it's usually somewhat obvious once you get there.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP...

 

it has everything to do with the OP...GC can't be held liable for people's stupidity, that's what the Darwin award is for

Not really though... The OP was asking specifically about the laws on the subject. Instead we get replies of people explaining why they don't need Groundspeak to judge danger in caches because they aren't stupid? Its beside the point. OP wanted to know about the specifics of the law, not why we think the rules are/should be a certain way. You can definitely be held liable for someone else's stupidity.

If someone leans on a speaker and kills someone, I can be held liable for assuring that its safe. It doesn't matter if it was clear to everyone that the thing would tip if you leaned on it.

 

I always see that on these forums.

"You think this TB looks like it's been muggled?"

"Don't hide something you can't part with."

"... I didn't?"

[I!]

OP> why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?

 

I'm no lawyer, but it seems GS are covered by their Terms of Use and Privacy Statement:

 

9. Indemnity

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

 

10. NO WARRANTIES

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

 

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

 

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

 

11. LIMITATION OF DAMAGES

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

 

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

[mresoteric]

I don't think the OP is suggesting that Groundspeak archive all dangerous caches. He even says that "obvious" dangers are reasonable and the the "non-obvious" dangers where some might get hurt because they expected that location to be safe are what need to be controlled. He has become frustrated because the standard response seems to be that if Groundspeak archived "non-obvious" danger caches, people would expect that the "obvious" dangers are really safe and then sue Groundspeak if they get hurt.

 

I see a couple of problems with this. How are volunteer reviewers supposed to determine that these non-obvious dangers exist? After all, they are not obvious.

 

What is the definition of non-obvious danger? How dangerous does it have to be to qualify as one and how obvious does it need to be before it is suddenly ok?

[+Too Tall John]

As far as I know, the reviewers only make judgements about the safety of caches based on information in front of them and apparent online during the review and/or when a land owner/manager expresses concerns.

I don't know of anyone who has suggested that reviewers should make judgements based on information they don't have. I certainly have never made such a silly suggestion.

Your idea that caches should be published or not based on danger relies on the people doing the publishing knowing what the dangers are, which they obviously can't. Therefore, your idea is based on exactly what you refer to as a silly suggestion.

If they started making a habit of making those judgements based on some written 'guide' then any similar cache clearly becomes a liabilty issue when/if somebody gets injured and a lawyer gets involved.

IMHO.

If Groundspeak rejects some illegally placed caches, then do they become liable for similar illegally placed caches that might slip through? If so, then why do they expose themselves to this alleged liability?

I'm a bit confused. At first, we're talking about safety, now you're talking about legality. Two separate issues.

 

Safety issue or legal issue, GS covers themselves in the Disclaimer on every cache page:

Neither Groundspeak Inc., nor any agent, officer, employee or volunteer administrator of Groundspeak Inc. warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, portions may be incorrect or not current. Any person or entity that relies on information obtained from Geocaching.com does so at his or her own risk.

[mresoteric]

Does this liability also apply to illegally placed caches? Groundspeak rejects some caches that they determine are illegally placed. Can we therefore construe that all their active caches are "perfectly legal?" And is Groundspeak liable?

 

Difference between illegality and danger is permission. In most cases illegality will be easily remedied with proper permission. Someone sees a no trespassing sign while looking for a cache, post NA. Reviewer can easily verify this without needing to be on-site.

 

Someone sees what they consider to be a dangerous cache. How does a reviewer verify this. Permission? Not necessarily. Could have explicit permission and still be considered dangerous. Is it dangerous in the opinion of the person posting NA? Ok. Now let's just get the reviewer to run right out there and confirm.

 

Not as easily remedied as an illegally placed cache. The law is pretty easy to sort out most of the time. Danger is in the eye of the beholder. Especially when you want to then differentiate between obvious and non-obvious danger.

[+t4e]

As an adult I independently judge how dangerous any activity I'm about to engage in is. I don't need Groundspeak to tell me something is dangerous. I can get there and figure that out on my own as it's usually somewhat obvious once you get there.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP...

 

it has everything to do with the OP...GC can't be held liable for people's stupidity, that's what the Darwin award is for

Not really though... The OP was asking specifically about the laws on the subject. Instead we get replies of people explaining why they don't need Groundspeak to judge danger in caches because they aren't stupid? Its beside the point. OP wanted to know about the specifics of the law, not why we think the rules are/should be a certain way. You can definitely be held liable for someone else's stupidity.

If someone leans on a speaker and kills someone, I can be held liable for assuring that its safe. It doesn't matter if it was clear to everyone that the thing would tip if you leaned on it.

 

I always see that on these forums.

"You think this TB looks like it's been muggled?"

"Don't hide something you can't part with."

"... I didn't?"

 

and many people have already stated that GS is not liable, now what?

 

the example you are providing is in no way related to our case....YOU are the person responsible to ensure that those speakers are firmly in place...the store that sold you the speakers is not liable

 

in this context GS is the store...they barely store the items for you, what you do with them is your own responsibility

 

and i believe the GS disclaimer has already been posted on the previous page so the OP's question has been answered several times, however he has been asked twice to explain what his personal beef is with this subject and he keeps avoiding to answer...so afaic this is not exactly a "just out of curiosity" thread

[+CanadianRockies]

Did something happen to you, or to one of your caches, or to somebody you know? Nobody clings to an issue like this without some motivating factor. Spill the beans, please. We're all dying to know.

The most serious injury I've incurred while geocaching is being stung by several wasps while at a cache location. No biggie. I didn't blame anyone but myself, and, to be honest, I didn't really blame myself very much. Sometimes, accidents just happen, and there isn't much that can be done to prevent them.

 

As far as I know, the most serious injury that has occurred at one of our caches is someone twisting their ankle. The person didn't blame us.

 

As far as I know, none of my friends has been seriously injured while geocaching. I've never heard them blame Groundspeak for any of their minor injuries.

 

Why is it so difficult to understand how someone could care about others?

 

Groundspeak reviewers don't allow caches to be placed too close to schools, because they don't want to create unnecessary concern for the children, school administrators, parents, and others. I'm glad they do.

 

Groundspeak reviewers have temporarily disabled caches that are too close to bird nesting sites because they don't want to unnecessarily endanger the safety of those birds. I'm glad they do.

 

Do you really find it baffling that I might want Groundspeak reviewers to archive and/or not publish certain caches they know are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers likely are unaware of those risks?

Edited June 27, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

As far as I know, the reviewers only make judgements about the safety of caches based on information in front of them and apparent online during the review and/or when a land owner/manager expresses concerns.

I don't know of anyone who has suggested that reviewers should make judgements based on information they don't have. I certainly have never made such a silly suggestion.

Your idea that caches should be published or not based on danger relies on the people doing the publishing knowing what the dangers are, which they obviously can't. Therefore, your idea is based on exactly what you refer to as a silly suggestion.

I don't think I've ever suggested Groundspeak should veto caches that they don't know are dangerous. From my original post and others in this thread...

 

If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches? Groundspeak wouldn't be certifying that every active cache is safe for everyone to find. And it would be silly for Groundspeak to make such a claim, since reviewers don't visit every cache location.

 

If Groundspeak rejects certain unsafe caches, they aren't guaranteeing or certifying the safety of all other caches. They hardly can render expert opinions on caches they don't visit, especially when the safety of those locations can change from day to day.

 

Would you prefer that Groundspeak waits until accidents (perhaps fatal accidents) occur on a power trail along a narrow road with blind curves or hills? If Groundspeak is aware of these risks, shouldn't they be proactive?

 

What if somebody placed a cache in an extremely radioactive zone and declined to warn potential searchers about this danger? If Groundspeak knew about this risk, shouldn't they decline to publish the cache?

[+CanadianRockies]

What is the definition of non-obvious danger?

How about something along the lines of: Caches that Groundspeak knows are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers are likely to be unaware of those risks?

 

How dangerous does it have to be to qualify as one and how obvious does it need to be before it is suddenly ok?

I assume reviewers could use common sense, much like when they determine a cache is "too" close to a school, when a cache is "buried," when a cache "defaces" or "destroys" property, when "adaquate" permission has been obtained, when a location is a likely terrorist target, or when a cache is "commercial."

[mresoteric]

What is the definition of non-obvious danger?

How about something along the lines of: Caches that Groundspeak knows are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers are likely to be unaware of those risks?

 

And without sending a reviewer out to assess this danger, how do you propose Groundspeak check to make sure it really is a non-obvious danger? They can't just take someone's word for it. It might not be obvious to you but may be very obvious to me. Cachers should be aware of their environment when out and about.

 

How dangerous does it have to be to qualify as one and how obvious does it need to be before it is suddenly ok?

I assume reviewers could use common sense, much like when they determine a cache is "too" close to a school, when a cache is "buried," when a cache "defaces" or "destroys" property, when "adaquate" permission has been obtained, when a location is a likely terrorist target, or when a cache is "commercial."

 

school property - easily verified via maps

buried - pretty simple to determine and more of a permission issue

defaces/destroys - simple to determine

terrorist target - easily verified via maps with exceptions made based on feedback

commercial - personally I don't think they do a great job with this

adequate permission - definitely would not use this to support your position. Reviewers do a terrible job with this for the same reason they can't determine non-obvious danger. They can't go out to each cache and interview the property owners. The difference is they err on the side that it generally has adequate permission if the hider checks that box.

 

Conversely, because it is all but impossible for Groundspeak to determine what is obvious or not obvious to any given individual, they assume that CACHERS use that common sense you speak of and check for dangers themselves while out and about.

 

It's kind of like driving. When I approach an intersection, I look at oncoming traffic. If I see someone blowing through a red light, I am going to stop my vehicle. It doesn't matter if I am right and he is wrong. I am the one that will be dead if I proceed even when I see danger.

 

So if I am out caching I am going to be looking for dangers. An area could have been completely safe yesterday and present a danger to me today. It is in my best interest to watch out for that danger myself rather than assuming safety because someone hid a cache there 3 years ago.

[+CanadianRockies]

Here's the full paragraph from my original post:

If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?

 

OP> why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems GS are covered by their Terms of Use and Privacy Statement:

 

[Cut Terms of Use sections about Indemnity, No Warranties, and Limitation of Damages.]

Yes, the Terms of Use statement would appear to be one more reason why Groundspeak might not be legally liable if they vetoed certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous.

 

Safety issue or legal issue, GS covers themselves in the Disclaimer on every cache page:

 

[Cut disclaimer text about Groundspeak not being liable.]

Yes, the disclaimer might be yet another reason.

 

and i believe the GS disclaimer has already been posted on the previous page so the OP's question has been answered several times...

It's nice to see we apparently are in agreement now.

[+CanadianRockies]

school property - easily verified via maps

Actually, reviewers sometimes veto caches that aren't on school property (verified by maps) but are too close to school property (using common sense).

 

buried - pretty simple to determine and more of a permission issue

During the course of their regular travels, a reviewer discovers that 5 percent of a cache is buried. Is the cache "buried?" What about 95 percent? If it was claimed that the cache is placed in a "pre-existing" hole, how likely is it that the hole really was there before?

 

defaces/destroys - simple to determine

Does writing coordinates on a fence post "deface" the post? Does pounding a small nail into that post "deface" it?

 

terrorist target - easily verified via maps with exceptions made based on feedback

Is a dam a potential terrorist target? If so, how close can caches be? How about a professional football stadium? A university stadium? High school bleachers? Maps don't answer any of these questions.

 

commercial - personally I don't think they do a great job with this

I assume they do the best they can. That's all we can really expect, yes?

 

adequate permission - definitely would not use this to support your position. Reviewers do a terrible job with this for the same reason they can't determine non-obvious danger. They can't go out to each cache and interview the property owners. The difference is they err on the side that it generally has adequate permission if the hider checks that box.

Nobody expects reviewers to be perfect every time. Not on any of the above judgement calls, and not on danger concerns. But I think making some attempt is better than making none.

 

Conversely, because it is all but impossible for Groundspeak to determine what is obvious or not obvious to any given individual, they assume that CACHERS use that common sense you speak of and check for dangers themselves while out and about.

As I'm sure you're already aware, I'm not suggesting that Groundspeak should veto caches with obvious dangers, like SCUBA diving or rock climbing. Nor am I suggesting that geocachers shouldn't use common sense when searching for caches.

 

Here's a scenario that seems fairly clear to me. Suppose a geocacher hides a cache in a very radioactive area. The Groundspeak reviewer is familiar with this area and asks the cache owner to place warnings on the listing page. The cache owner refuses. Many geocachers, especially non-locals, might be unaware of the radioactivity at that location. Most geocachers don't carry Geiger counters with them. Should the reviewer publish this cache?

[+TheLoneGrangers]

Because I use my logical skills I don't stick my hand blindly into holes or typically cache around things that produce electricity. I also wouldn't park or cache on a blind curve because as and adult I can look at that situation and think you know this isn't really safe or smart for me to do.

 

If someone lacks that ability to look at stuff like that recognize it's a bad choice that is no one's fault but their own. They don't need Groundspeak reviewers or the company in general to hold their hands because really they have bigger issues in life if they can't make a healthy choice.

 

Yes they should just ignore them and assume people will use their critical thinking skills and make better choices or learn by natural consequences. If someone is so lacking in foresight that they park or walk irresponsibly on a blind curve they are at risk. And if you stick your hand in a dark hold you may get bit or poked... there's not much hope for them in general real life.

 

And I know the next remark will be about children. I'm of the belief if one chooses to procreate and have children it is their responsibility to care for them. If they are going to engage in an activity which is outdoors which is inherently dangerous to children in itself then they need to use their logical thinking skills and protect their children and not expect the rest of us to bubble wrap the world and take the onus off of them to be a parent. People need to watch their own children. If that means holding their hand, walking them on a leash or in some other way making sure they don't run erratically and make stupid choices so be it.

 

Well said....I can sum this well written post into two words:

 

Personal Responsiblity

[+tozainamboku]

What is the definition of non-obvious danger?

How about something along the lines of: Caches that Groundspeak knows are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers are likely to be unaware of those risks?

Wow.

 

I think it's clear there are certain locations that you would like to see guideline prohibiting caches. There have been a number of incidents like this one where some cacher either acted irresponsibly or was unaware of the danger when hiding a cache. In these situations, however, existing guideline are almost surely being violated. The primary guideline will be the adequate permission. Caches placed in the types of places you are most likely concern with are likely not getting adequate permission. If a geocacher finds a cache hidden in a manner that makes it doubtful a property owner or land manager gave permission for the cache they can post a Needs Archive or contact the reviewer. I don't see the need for new guidelines that open a can of worms with a subjective definition.

[+CanadianRockies]

Well said....I can sum this well written post into two words:

 

Personal Responsiblity

Nobody is suggesting that geocachers shouldn't exercise personal responsibility. But we aren't entirely to blame for everything that happens to us, either. I doubt that anybody is suggesting that either.

 

Here's a scenario that seems fairly clear to me. Suppose a geocacher hides a cache in a very radioactive area. The Groundspeak reviewer is familiar with this area and asks the cache owner to place warnings on the listing page. The cache owner refuses. Many geocachers, especially non-locals, might be unaware of the radioactivity at that location. Most geocachers don't carry Geiger counters with them. Should the reviewer publish this cache?

 

I don't believe the question is whether or not Groundspeak should take danger into account before publishing (or later archiving) certain types of caches. I think the question we should be asking is: When is it reasonable for Groundspeak to veto certain types of caches because of danger concerns? To me, it seems obvious that the answer to this second question is neither "always" nor "never."

[+Keelmann And Cici]

I think the question we should be asking is: When is it reasonable for Groundspeak to veto certain types of caches because of danger concerns? To me, it seems obvious that the answer to this second question is neither "always" nor "never."

 

1. When they violate the stated placement rules, which were designed to conform to basic safety guidelines, and to prevent violation of local laws.

 

2. The common sense of the reviewer.

[+tozainamboku]

I think the question we should be asking is: When is it reasonable for Groundspeak to veto certain types of caches because of danger concerns? To me, it seems obvious that the answer to this second question is neither "always" nor "never."

 

1. When they violate the stated placement rules, which were designed to conform to basic safety guidelines, and to prevent violation of local laws.

 

2. The common sense of the reviewer.

1. The stated placement rules (guidelines) don't say anything about basic safety guidelines. That is the OP's point. He believes they should. Some have argued that the reason they don't is because Groundspeak would then be liable for injuries at caches that have certain "obvious" dangers.

2. Reviewers can employee common sense in reviewing caches but they must follow the stated guidelines and not make decisions based on their personal view of what should or shouldn't be allowed.

 

I think what the OP seem to be asking for now is for cache owners to be required to state up front the risks of hunting their cache and should they (or Groundspeak) become aware of risk after the cache has been place, they need to update their warnings or archive the cache.

 

It sounds pretty good to require people to properly rate the cache and to use attributes and descriptive text to make seekers aware of "unobvious" dangers. The problem is determining what is obvious and what is not. Should I be required indicate that a cache in a tree means there is danger falling out of a tree, or that a cache near a road means watch out for cars? It is not an easy line to define.

Edited June 27, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+Sol seaker]

A lot of the discussion I see here is over whether or not a cache is dangerous or can be determined to be dangerous.

We're having pages of discussion over whether a cache can be judged dangerous, so don't you think Groundspeak would have the same problem?

 

The other thing is that ALL caches would have to be visited to see if they are safe. Then we have to train reviewers in what is safe. Then people get to wait longer while their caches are reviewed and visited.

 

Some caches ARE obvious.

One comes to mind that is a great favorite.

It's a multi-cache that you have to take ropes to get to each waypoint. One or some of the waypoints are up about 60 feet in a tree. Another waypoint you've got to get across a river with the rope. I think the final requires repelling.

That is a dangerous cache. People love it!! If Groundspeak were to archive this one they would be met with a lot of resistance!!!

Heck, I never plan on getting that cache, but I would resist archiving.

It's an awesome cache. We need these adventure caches. This is not a video game, it's real life.

 

Geocaching is an adventure. Let's keep it that way.

 

My other example is the other extreme.

 

The cache that I got injured the worst on would have passed the safety test.

 

It was a nice little cache next to a paved trail in a park. You didn't even have to step off the trail to get this cache (although I had no way of knowing that). How could that not be safe?

 

A muggle came along as I was beginning the search. It looked me weird just hanging out there, so I stepped up onto a log to get a view of the nearby creek. I acted as if I was admiring the beauty of the area.

Then BOOM!!! I fell hard and FAST onto the log on my back. I fell with force so intense it put me into such pain I had to fight to keep from blacking out. I rolled onto the ground and was there a very long time before I could get up again. I managed to barely make it back to my car but I did not walk more than 50 feet again for months.

 

This cache would have passed all tests.

 

Even if someone had viewed that log as a risk, it would have only been that slippery certain times of year. But the cache was next to the trail.

 

Safe cache? It wasn't for me.

[+sbell111]

How much more are we going to rehash this issue?

Several people have commented on how nice it would be if people took more responsibility for their actions.

You don't seem to be arguing that people should be responsible for their own actions. Instead, you seem to be arguing that TPTB are supposed to protect me from dangers that I should be aware of, but am too stupid too notice, such as your blind curve example.

 

While I certainly agree that TPTB would be right to archive cache that is found to be booby-trapped, you seem to be trying to take this further to do away with some yet unidentified subset of caches that you have decided are too dangerous to exist.

[mresoteric]

I wonder who I can blame for popping my ankle a few weeks back? I was in a swamp. I got my foot caught up in a root underwater. Hmmmm.

 

On one hand it wasn't obvious that the root was there. I couldn't see it. And I've been all around the area previously without incident.

 

On the other hand I was in a swamp so one could assume the danger is obvious.

 

How do you think I should handle it when I get back to place the cache eventually?

 

Do I really need to put a warning on the listing telling people to be aware of the possibility of underwater roots? If not and Groundspeak was suddenly reviewing for dangers could a cacher sue them or me if they messed their ankle up like I did?

 

It's really not as simple as you try to make it out to be.

 

Sure, your one radioactive example probably makes sense. But again, that is likely to be more of a permission issue than danger issue. I can't think of a place off the top of my head that I am going to be aware of radioactivity without owning a geiger counter where the land owner will not be aware first and deny the cache due to possible liability to himself.

 

And if I am not walking around with a geiger counter when I place caches then just how am I supposed to make Groundspeak aware of that?

[knowschad]

Do you really find it baffling that I might want Groundspeak reviewers to archive and/or not publish certain caches they know are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers likely are unaware of those risks?

That is exactly what I was asking. I did not know that you wanted that. All I knew was that I continually saw you arguing against the stated reasons why they didn't do it. At least I now know where you are coming from. Thanks.

[knowschad]

Should I be required indicate that a cache in a tree means there is danger falling out of a tree

You forgot to warn me of the danger of the tree being struck by lightning during a thunderstorm. I was up in the tree when that happened and my life will never be the same because of your negligence. You will be hearing from my lawyer!

[+CanadianRockies]

I think it's clear there are certain locations that you would like to see guideline prohibiting caches.

It's not locations per se but rather specific situations that I think Groundspeak should consider when archiving caches or rejecting them for publication due to certain types of risks. Whether these situations are best spelled out in guidelines is something Groundspeak could determine. If I'm not mistaken, the prohibition on placing caches near potential terrorist targets is no longer spelled out in the public guidelines but is still enforced.

 

In these situations, however, existing guideline are almost surely being violated.

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

[+CanadianRockies]

Do you really find it baffling that I might want Groundspeak reviewers to archive and/or not publish certain caches they know are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers likely are unaware of those risks?

That is exactly what I was asking. I did not know that you wanted that. All I knew was that I continually saw you arguing against the stated reasons why they didn't do it. At least I now know where you are coming from. Thanks.

Your welcome. You also could have read my comments in Post #9:

 

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Groundspeak should prohibit all dangerous caches. Indeed, there are some activities, such as scuba diving or rock climbing, that might be dangerous to some and not so dangerous to others. As long as you're aware of those risks, then you can independently judge them.

 

But what about dangers of which you might be unaware, such as a cache hidden amongst live wires in a lamppost or surrounded by used needles in a dark hole? If Groundspeak is aware of those dangers, should they just ignore them?

 

What about dangers to other people besides yourself? If a power trail cache is hidden near a blind curve on a narrow mountain road with no shoulders, then a geocacher might decide it is worth the risk to park, jump out, and find the cache. But what about the occupants in the car coming around the blind corner? They didn't make the decision to put themselves in this dangerous situation.

I think I also made my position reasonably clear in several other posts as well.

[+t4e]

 

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

 

positively YES...just because there is a cache in a place hard/impossible to get doesn't mean you have to stop for it...there are several caches on places where for 99% of the cachers is virtually impossible to get there...i won't use the extreme example of the Space Station, but what about on Everest?

[+tozainamboku]

I think it's clear there are certain locations that you would like to see guideline prohibiting caches.

It's not locations per se but rather specific situations that I think Groundspeak should consider when archiving caches or rejecting them for publication due to certain types of risks. Whether these situations are best spelled out in guidelines is something Groundspeak could determine. If I'm not mistaken, the prohibition on placing caches near potential terrorist targets is no longer spelled out in the public guidelines but is still enforced.

True terrorism per se is not mentioned anymore, now it just says problematic due to proximity to a public structure. The intent is still clear. Military bases and schools are also called out elsewhere as locations where permission is an issue.

In these situations, however, existing guideline are almost surely being violated.

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

Of course if local law enforcement or the department of transportation asks for these caches to be removed, you do know that they will be archived.

Edited June 27, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

And if Groundspeak started archiving caches for safety a whole lot of people would be really upset because people LIKE searching for dangerous caches.

There are some popular caches for rock climbers and scuba divers.

Rock climbers and scuba divers. That has a familiar ring to it. Could you possibly have read my Post #9 in this thread? The one where I wrote:

 

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Groundspeak should prohibit all dangerous caches. Indeed, there are some activities, such as scuba diving or rock climbing, that might be dangerous to some and not so dangerous to others. As long as you're aware of those risks, then you can independently judge them.

[knowschad]

Do you really find it baffling that I might want Groundspeak reviewers to archive and/or not publish certain caches they know are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers likely are unaware of those risks?

That is exactly what I was asking. I did not know that you wanted that. All I knew was that I continually saw you arguing against the stated reasons why they didn't do it. At least I now know where you are coming from. Thanks.

Your welcome. You also could have read my comments in Post #9:

 

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Groundspeak should prohibit all dangerous caches. Indeed, there are some activities, such as scuba diving or rock climbing, that might be dangerous to some and not so dangerous to others. As long as you're aware of those risks, then you can independently judge them.

 

But what about dangers of which you might be unaware, such as a cache hidden amongst live wires in a lamppost or surrounded by used needles in a dark hole? If Groundspeak is aware of those dangers, should they just ignore them?

 

What about dangers to other people besides yourself? If a power trail cache is hidden near a blind curve on a narrow mountain road with no shoulders, then a geocacher might decide it is worth the risk to park, jump out, and find the cache. But what about the occupants in the car coming around the blind corner? They didn't make the decision to put themselves in this dangerous situation.

I think I also made my position reasonably clear in several other posts as well.

 

Post #1 says "If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?"

 

I took that to be what you were talking about and wanted clarification on. It was not clear to me, even by Post #9, that what you were really saying is that you want Groundspeak to not publish certain caches because they "know" they are dangerous.

 

I put "know" in quotation marks simply because it is preposterous to think that a reviewer could know that a cache is too dangerous for any particular cacher. Even your example of the blind curve presupposes that the cacher is approaching in a car, and not hiking cross-country to the cache.

[+CanadianRockies]

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

positively YES...just because there is a cache in a place hard/impossible to get doesn't mean you have to stop for it...there are several caches on places where for 99% of the cachers is virtually impossible to get there...i won't use the extreme example of the Space Station, but what about on Everest?

The question isn't whether or not a cache is difficult to get to. The question is whether Groundspeak should allow caches that it knows could easily cause harm to geocachers or non-geocachers when the risks might not be apparent to those people.

 

In the case of the power trail caches on shoulderless roads near blind corners, experience has shown that some personal-record seeking geocachers likely will park illegally on the road to grab the cache. If another vehicle suddenly comes around that blind corner, it could well collide with that parked car, perhaps even killing someone.

 

If the dead or injured person was one of the illegally parked geocachers, you might argue that they knew the risks and accepted them. But if the dead or injured person was an occupant of the non-geocaching vehicle, then I think it's much harder to argue that they knew the risks and accepted them.

[knowschad]

In the case of the power trail caches on shoulderless roads near blind corners, experience has shown that some personal-record seeking geocachers likely will park illegally on the road to grab the cache. If another vehicle suddenly comes around that blind corner, it could well collide with that parked car, perhaps even killing someone.

 

If the dead or injured person was one of the illegally parked geocachers, you might argue that they knew the risks and accepted them. But if the dead or injured person was an occupant of the non-geocaching vehicle, then I think it's much harder to argue that they knew the risks and accepted them.

Ahhhh, OK. Slowly the story is revealing itself. How about editing the OP to:

 

"I don't think Groundspeak should allow roadside powercache trails".

[+CanadianRockies]

Post #1 says "If Groundspeak were to archive (or never publish in the first place) certain caches they deemed to be unacceptably dangerous, then why would this make them legally liable for the safety of all active caches?"

 

I took that to be what you were talking about and wanted clarification on. It was not clear to me, even by Post #9, that what you were really saying is that you want Groundspeak to not publish certain caches because they "know" they are dangerous.

Yes, my question in Post #1 was the one I originally was discussing and wanted clarification on. But the thread deviated from that subject somewhat, and I tried to respond to some of the more on-topic points as well. By the time you asked your question in Post #58, I thought you would have realized what type of dangerous caches I believe Groundspeak should archive and/or not publish.

 

I put "know" in quotation marks simply because it is preposterous to think that a reviewer could know that a cache is too dangerous for any particular cacher. Even your example of the blind curve presupposes that the cacher is approaching in a car, and not hiking cross-country to the cache.

"Know" wasn't the best word choice. Changing it to "can reasonably foresee" would be better.

 

I fail to understand how my blind-curve example is preposterous merely because it presupposes the cacher arrives at the location in a car. Based on previous experiences, it seems quite reasonable to assume most cachers will arrive in vehicles, but feel free to expand the example to include cross-country hikers as well.

[+CanadianRockies]

In the case of the power trail caches on shoulderless roads near blind corners, experience has shown that some personal-record seeking geocachers likely will park illegally on the road to grab the cache. If another vehicle suddenly comes around that blind corner, it could well collide with that parked car, perhaps even killing someone.

 

If the dead or injured person was one of the illegally parked geocachers, you might argue that they knew the risks and accepted them. But if the dead or injured person was an occupant of the non-geocaching vehicle, then I think it's much harder to argue that they knew the risks and accepted them.

Ahhhh, OK. Slowly the story is revealing itself. How about editing the OP to:

 

"I don't think Groundspeak should allow roadside powercache trails".

Because I don't agree with that statement. As I've noted before on these forums, I have no problem with power trails. I've even enjoyed finding caches on a small power trail and would like to try a longer one to see I like that as well.

[+CanadianRockies]

In these situations, however, existing guideline are almost surely being violated.

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

Of course if local law enforcement or the department of transportation asks for these caches to be removed, you do know that they will be archived.

I didn't ask whether Groundspeak should archive caches when law enforcement or land managers request it. I asked whether Groundspeak should be proactive and not publish the questionable caches and perhaps prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

[mresoteric]

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

 

I thought you were campaigning against non-obvious dangers?

 

That's a pretty obvious danger AND easily avoided by parking up the road where it is safe and walking to the blind curve. Is it Groundspeak's problem that some insist on driving their vehicle right up to every cache?

[mresoteric]

In the case of the power trail caches on shoulderless roads near blind corners, experience has shown that some personal-record seeking geocachers likely will park illegally on the road to grab the cache. If another vehicle suddenly comes around that blind corner, it could well collide with that parked car, perhaps even killing someone.

 

If the dead or injured person was one of the illegally parked geocachers, you might argue that they knew the risks and accepted them. But if the dead or injured person was an occupant of the non-geocaching vehicle, then I think it's much harder to argue that they knew the risks and accepted them.

Ahhhh, OK. Slowly the story is revealing itself. How about editing the OP to:

 

"I don't think Groundspeak should allow roadside powercache trails".

Because I don't agree with that statement. As I've noted before on these forums, I have no problem with power trails. I've even enjoyed finding caches on a small power trail and would like to try a longer one to see I like that as well.

 

Might be true that you have no problem with SOME power trails. But I also felt you revealed you true motive with that post.

[mresoteric]

In these situations, however, existing guideline are almost surely being violated.

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

Of course if local law enforcement or the department of transportation asks for these caches to be removed, you do know that they will be archived.

I didn't ask whether Groundspeak should archive caches when law enforcement or land managers request it. I asked whether Groundspeak should be proactive and not publish the questionable caches and perhaps prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring.

 

You missed the point. He's saying that there is no reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially. No laws are being broken and there ARE safe ways to approach such a cache.

 

BUT, law enforcement or say, NDOT were to request archival, then it falls back on legality/permission and there are already guidelines in place that deal with that.

[+CanadianRockies]

A lot of the discussion I see here is over whether or not a cache is dangerous or can be determined to be dangerous.

We're having pages of discussion over whether a cache can be judged dangerous, so don't you think Groundspeak would have the same problem?

I'm not saying it's easy for Groundspeak reviewers to make judgement calls. I'm sure it's not always simple to determine if a cache is "too" close to a school, when a cache is "buried," when a cache "defaces" property, when "adequate" permission has been obtained, when a location is a likely terrorist target, or when a cache is "commercial."

 

The other thing is that ALL caches would have to be visited to see if they are safe.

Why? I've only suggested that reviewers should consider the dangers they are aware of. I agree it would be silly to expect reviewers to visit every cache, especially when conditions can change from day to day.

 

Some caches ARE obvious.

One comes to mind that is a great favorite.

It's a multi-cache that you have to take ropes to get to each waypoint. One or some of the waypoints are up about 60 feet in a tree. Another waypoint you've got to get across a river with the rope. I think the final requires repelling.

That is a dangerous cache. People love it!!

That's a "straw man argument." I've never suggested Groundspeak should forbid caches where the dangers are obvious. In Post #9, I wrote:

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Groundspeak should prohibit all dangerous caches. Indeed, there are some activities, such as scuba diving or rock climbing, that might be dangerous to some and not so dangerous to others. As long as you're aware of those risks, then you can independently judge them.

 

The cache that I got injured the worst on would have passed the safety test.

Nobody has suggested that everyone will be perfectly safe if Groundspeak were to veto certain types of dangerous caches.

[mresoteric]

I've never suggested Groundspeak should forbid caches where the dangers are obvious.

 

Yet, you submit an example of an obvious danger for consideration.

 

Or, is it possible that you see the blind curve as not obvious while I see it as obvious as hell?

 

You see the problem?

[+CanadianRockies]

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

I thought you were campaigning against non-obvious dangers?

 

That's a pretty obvious danger AND easily avoided by parking up the road where it is safe and walking to the blind curve. Is it Groundspeak's problem that some insist on driving their vehicle right up to every cache?

Experience has shown that some geocachers doing power trail runs will park illegally on narrow roads and create dangerous situations. While the dangers are obvious to the geocachers, they aren't obvious to the occupants of a car coming around the blind curve. If Groundspeak reviewers can reasonably foresee these dangerous situations even before publishing the caches, then I think they might very well have a problem with gross negligence.

[+CanadianRockies]

In the case of the power trail caches on shoulderless roads near blind corners, experience has shown that some personal-record seeking geocachers likely will park illegally on the road to grab the cache. If another vehicle suddenly comes around that blind corner, it could well collide with that parked car, perhaps even killing someone.

 

If the dead or injured person was one of the illegally parked geocachers, you might argue that they knew the risks and accepted them. But if the dead or injured person was an occupant of the non-geocaching vehicle, then I think it's much harder to argue that they knew the risks and accepted them.

Ahhhh, OK. Slowly the story is revealing itself. How about editing the OP to:

 

"I don't think Groundspeak should allow roadside powercache trails".

Because I don't agree with that statement. As I've noted before on these forums, I have no problem with power trails. I've even enjoyed finding caches on a small power trail and would like to try a longer one to see I like that as well.

Might be true that you have no problem with SOME power trails. But I also felt you revealed you true motive with that post.

What's true is that I have problems with some sections of power trails, specifically those that create situations that can Groundspeak can reasonably foresee to be dangerous but where innocent drivers cannot.

 

When I wrote, "In the case of the power trail caches on shoulderless roads near blind corners..." I was very specific about the types of caches to which I'm opposed. I'm not sure how I could have been any more specific than that.

[mresoteric]

What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills?

I thought you were campaigning against non-obvious dangers?

 

That's a pretty obvious danger AND easily avoided by parking up the road where it is safe and walking to the blind curve. Is it Groundspeak's problem that some insist on driving their vehicle right up to every cache?

Experience has shown that some geocachers doing power trail runs will park illegally on narrow roads and create dangerous situations. While the dangers are obvious to the geocachers, they aren't obvious to the occupants of a car coming around the blind curve. If Groundspeak reviewers can reasonably foresee these dangerous situations even before publishing the caches, then I think they might very well have a problem with gross negligence.

 

Experience has also shown that such caches were hidden without adequate permission. I bet any future such caches will be vetted on the permission issue a bit stronger in the future.

 

And what you are talking about is attempting to predict human behavior. You've stepped right past radiation which neither the hider nor Groundspeak could know about unless they carried around geiger counters but at least made some sense into trying to figure out if finders are going to ignore obvious hazards or not. While at the same time you continue to insist you are talking about non-obvious dangers.

 

Any way you write it, blind curves are pretty obvious dangers; at least to me.

[mresoteric]

What's true is that I have problems with some sections of power trails, specifically those that create situations that can Groundspeak can reasonably foresee to be dangerous but where innocent drivers cannot.

 

In your opinion.

 

You don't seem to get that what is not obvious to you may very well be blatantly obvious to the next guy.

 

Again, I am very aware of the dangers of blind curves. You may drive along completely oblivious to this danger, but that doesn't mean every else does.

 

So, are we really talking about non-obvious dangers or are we really talking about dangers you don't like?