Extreme caches and permission

[+duncanhoyle]

A blog post on Geocaching.com and a link on the Geocaching Facebook page recently highlighted a fun looking cache underground in Prague. Whilst it looks like an adventurous cache to set and to search for surely something similar would never happen in this country if the cache owner had to get permission from the landowner/manager. I can't imagine any authority would ever give permission for people to roam around underground without safety gear, training, risk assessment, insurance etc.

I considered setting a cache in a tunnel close to my house (500+m long with a change of level, complete darkness, possible cracks above sewers) but in the end decided against it as I was pretty certain never to have been given permission, cachers would be advised to use gas detectors which few (or more likely none) would have. I did wonder if it was actually too dangerous even for a 5*T (I can't believe the Prague one is only 3.5*T). When I discussed it with a local cacher I found that he'd already thought about it and decided against it for the same reasons.

 

Whilst walking in the Coniston area over the weekend I noticed at least one cache that involved going into old mine workings and I'm aware of some (in Cornwall I think) that do the same. Were these set up before land owner permission was required or is that 'Fundamental Placement Guidelines' (see point 2) generally ignored - I'm assuming that the land owner doesn't know about them but perhaps they do?

[+keehotee]

I did wonder if it was actually too dangerous even for a 5*T (I can't believe the Prague one is only 3.5*T).

 

Too dangerous for a 5T??

The terrain ratings used by Groundspeak don't take account of the "danger" involved in finding a cache - only the difficulty in getting to it, and a 3.5 would be somewhere in between "Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)" and "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)" which sounds about right for the Prague cache.

We are already inundated with supposed 5/5 caches that are only rated that way because the owner feels welly boots and a torch are specialised equipment requiring specific training!

Mine workings and old tunnels range enormously in their complexity, safety and ease of access. Some can be walked into, while others might involve tight crawls and water up to or over your head - but they don't all automatically warrant a 5T just for being underground!

 

I'd agree that many are dangerous - but so is crossing the road. I have no qualms going into a cave or many mine workings - but there's no way, for example, you'd get me walking 500 metres through a canal tunnel built 200 years ago, and abandoned and unmaintained for the past 100 years. Have you seen the state of above ground brickwork that isn't looked after for 100 years? Now imagine that permanently damp, holding several thousand tonnes of rock and mud off your head???

 

Whilst walking in the Coniston area over the weekend I noticed at least one cache that involved going into old mine workings and I'm aware of some (in Cornwall I think) that do the same. Were these set up before land owner permission was required

 

AFAIK adequate landowner permission has always been required for a hide. The difference is in peoples interpretation of the "adequacy".

There are a few caches underground in workings on Dartmoor. The mines have long since reverted to the ownership of Dartmoor National Park - who tolerate caching within certain guidelines - and as the hides don't breach either DNP's or Groundspeak's guidelines there are no permission issues.

Edited October 5, 2011 by keehotee

[+Andalusite]

Every cache should have permissison (it is what the guidelines say) and when you submit a cache you tick the checkbox to say that you have "adequate" permisssion.

 

As a reviewer the guidance I am given by Groundspeak is that I should accept this declaration at face value unless the cache is in a location where I am required to ask for that proof to be demonstrated. In general, this means the cache is located in an area covered by a GAGB guideline (church property, an SSSI, a nature reserve etc.) or by a GAGB landowner agreement (Brecon Beacons National Park etc.). Sometimes the reviewer will also ask for demonstration of the proof if the cache is in a location that has an obvious potential to cause problems (an extreme cache that would require abseiling off a bridge over a motorway, for example).

 

In general, I try not to review 'extreme' caches any differently to normal ones as long as the description makes the potential hazards clear.

 

If you are in any doubt about whether you will be asked to show that you have permission for a cache at a given location, contact your local reviewer.

 

Hope this helps

 

Andalusite

[+Happy Humphrey]

I've found a couple of caches in the Coniston area that required exploration of old mine workings and I guess that the cache setter did his homework because there was no real danger (although a bit of discomfort).

 

I've no idea whether permission was granted (and don't care) but I did expect to have to go underground and (in one case) get wet. I know of caches in Germany that are underground in towns, but the Germans don't seem to worry about it like we do but just call it "exciting"! Really there can be no hard and fast rule because (as Keehotee mentions) some underground caches will be safe and others dangerous, and only detailed local knowledge will reveal which type it is.

 

I think that a fair rule of thumb is that if you can get to the entrance easily and doesn't look like there has ever been anything to stop you entering, and it looks safe to you; then it's probably safe enough to enter. Should it start to look a bit dodgy then I'd simply turn back. I'll leave the safety gear, training and paper work to those with no common sense.

[+Munkeh]

I have no qualms going into a cave or many mine workings - but there's no way, for example, you'd get me walking 500 metres through a canal tunnel built 200 years ago, and abandoned and unmaintained for the past 100 years. Have you seen the state of above ground brickwork that isn't looked after for 100 years? Now imagine that permanently damp, holding several thousand tonnes of rock and mud off your head???

 

you disappoint me keehotee, that is just a accident and injury waiting to happen

[+Morton]

I think that a fair rule of thumb is that if you can get to the entrance easily and doesn't look like there has ever been anything to stop you entering, and it looks safe to you; then it's probably safe enough to enter. Should it start to look a bit dodgy then I'd simply turn back. I'll leave the safety gear, training and paper work to those with no common sense.

With respect, that's the kind of thinking which leads to people going up Ben Nevis wearing trainers and a T-shirt - it doesn't look in the slightest bit dodgy, until the weather turns. "Common sense" is just another phrase for "experience". Not everybody has it, and it's not always their fault.

 

My own rule of thumb is that if I'm doing something that's unfamiliar to me, it's probably a good idea to understand what the dangers are. Speaking personally, I appreciate the effort which underground cache setters in this country (almost) always put into the safety gear, training and paperwork, in the form of warnings on the cache page.

 

Of course, I still wouldn't look for the cache... but that's because I'm a complete fraidy-cat. Maybe one day.

 

Cheers

Richard

[+Simply Paul]

...leads to people going up Ben Nevis wearing trainers and a T-shirt.

Just trainers and a T-shirt? A sure-fire way to suffer from exposure

 

Some of the favourite caches I've done haven't been what you'd call 'safe'. They all had proper warnings on the cache page and I knew what risks I was running going for them. Did they have permission? I doubt it, but since there's nothing to stop me walking down a tunnel, exploring caves or climbing up a tree in a park even if there's no cache down/up there to find, I didn't feel I was being 'naughty'. Caches that need you to ignore Private signs or cross barbed wire fences, or are listed as kid-friendly but aren't, or generally mislead the challenge (bad D/T info included) are all much more of an issue for me and the owner would often get a polite suggestion via log (if there was a 'warning other cachers' aspect) or email afterwards. I've turned back from caches which set alarm bells ringing. Not literally, but that may only be a matter of time

 

In locations with 'open public access' where there might be some risks (Box Freestone Mines near Bath spring to mind) actually make great locations for caches - Styx in Prague would be another fine example. Should something happen to a cacher trying to reach the box, the cache owner may be open to legal troubles, especially if the cache is hidden without permission. That should be a factor in deciding whether a cache should be placed in 'challenging' locations. I hope reasonably reckless (but not genuinely insane) hiders will continue to add memorable hides and locations to my long list of To Do caches. I'll carry on assuming they have permission to, unless I see something to the contrary enroute...

[+*mouse*]

I have no qualms going into a cave or many mine workings - but there's no way, for example, you'd get me walking 500 metres through a canal tunnel built 200 years ago, and abandoned and unmaintained for the past 100 years. Have you seen the state of above ground brickwork that isn't looked after for 100 years? Now imagine that permanently damp, holding several thousand tonnes of rock and mud off your head???

 

you disappoint me keehotee, that is just a accident and injury waiting to happen

 

Shhhhhh don't jinx things - it's been over a year without me having to take him on a trip to A&E.....

[+Morton]

In locations with 'open public access' where there might be some risks (Box Freestone Mines near Bath spring to mind) actually make great locations for caches

Yes, absolutely. Those specific caches were actually the ones I was thinking about when I said "maybe one day".

 

It was just the "it's all common sense, safety schmafety" line I was objecting to. (With apologies to HH, since I realise that's a grotesque stereotype of what he said.)

 

Styx in Prague would be another fine example.

But that one I'm really not so sure about, and I was more than a little surprised to see the video on the official Geocaching blog. I mean, yes, you can skirt round the obvious barrier and jump down the six-foot drop, but does that really equate to it being "open"? We could debate forever whether it's socially acceptable to go there anyway, but it doesn't feel at all compatible with the general Groundspeak ethos.

 

PS. This is off-topic, but if anyone does have a secret hankering to explore a sewer, I can heartily recommend the Southern Water tours in Brighton. There are ladders and manholes and stuff, and you get to splash down a giant brick-lined pipe waving a torch around, just like in the movies. I must admit though, having done it once, I don't particularly feel the need ever to do it again

[+redsox_mark]

In locations with 'open public access' where there might be some risks (Box Freestone Mines near Bath spring to mind) actually make great locations for caches

Yes, absolutely. Those specific caches were actually the ones I was thinking about when I said "maybe one day".

 

Regarding those specific caches - I too am a bit of a "fraidy-cat". So I teamed up with other fraidy-cats and we brought someone who had experience in those mines with us. Strongly recommended.

[+Happy Humphrey]

It was just the "it's all common sense, safety schmafety" line I was objecting to. (With apologies to HH, since I realise that's a grotesque stereotype of what he said.)

Apologies accepted.

But I meant that mature individuals can make their own judgement (AKA common sense) about underground caches, not that they can ignore safety issues (quite the opposite, in fact). About climbing Ben Nevis; the view of an impressive-looking 4000 feet of towering ice-topped rock kind of suggests that t-shirt and shorts might be rather inadequate. So someone with common sense will be a little more circumspect than if it's the Malvern Hills on August Bank holiday and might just get some equipment loaded into the rucksack. It's a different rule of thumb than that about caves and tunnels, which is why common sense isn't easy to define.