Magnetic caches on high voltage electrical cabinets

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

GC10Q31 was a magnetic cache on a supermarket electrical panel in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The bomb squad was called in and it seems Portsmouth banned geocaching for a time; there was a forum thread about that cache.

 

Now that we know that you peek in, can you explain why you pay for a google ad for your bookmark list?

[Mr.Yuck]

GC10Q31 was a magnetic cache on a supermarket electrical panel in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The bomb squad was called in and it seems Portsmouth banned geocaching for a time; there was a forum thread about that cache.

 

Now that we know that you peek in, can you explain why you pay for a google ad for your bookmark list?

 

He actually does have a good explanation, but I'll let him post it. Seeing as I'm the guy who responded in the other thread I'm quite sure you're referring to.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

GC10Q31 was a magnetic cache on a supermarket electrical panel in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The bomb squad was called in and it seems Portsmouth banned geocaching for a time; there was a forum thread about that cache.

 

Now that we know that you peek in, can you explain why you pay for a google ad for your bookmark list?

 

He actually does have a good explanation, but I'll let him post it. Seeing as I'm the guy who responded in the other thread I'm quite sure you're referring to.

 

That would be the thread. I suspect that your definition of "good" and mine may very well differ, but I'm honestly curious & he did peek in.

[+L0ne.R]

I saw one of those "utility plate" caches placed near the bottom of a steel door. I looked at it a dozen times before realizing it couldn't be a real utility plate. Good hide.

 

These were fun the first couple of times I found them, after that it became run-of-the-mill. I suppose whenever one of the utility plate caches are planted there's going to be a few new geocachers that come along who've never seen one and for them they are a cool find.

 

I'm one of those who have qualms about utility box caches. One I went to this summer instructed to "Give a mighty yank!". There were lots of wires and things in the stadium light fixture. I didn't think yanking on those things was a good idea but there were lots of happy finders with not one concern in the logs about yanking at things on an electric utility post plus 3 favorite votes. The cache was cleverly disguised, good craftmanship and blended in well which meant more chances of yanking on the wrong thing.

[+luvvinbird]

I saw one of those "utility plate" caches placed near the bottom of a steel door. I looked at it a dozen times before realizing it couldn't be a real utility plate. Good hide.

 

These were fun the first couple of times I found them, after that it became run-of-the-mill. I suppose whenever one of the utility plate caches are planted there's going to be a few new geocachers that come along who've never seen one and for them they are a cool find.

 

I'm one of those who have qualms about utility box caches. One I went to this summer instructed to "Give a mighty yank!". There were lots of wires and things in the stadium light fixture. I didn't think yanking on those things was a good idea but there were lots of happy finders with not one concern in the logs about yanking at things on an electric utility post plus 3 favorite votes. The cache was cleverly disguised, good craftmanship and blended in well which meant more chances of yanking on the wrong thing.

I found a LPC that, when raised, revealed a lot of twisted wiring and the container right in the middle of it. I'm not an electrician but I didn't see any uninsulated wires or any that were capped so I grabbed it but placed it back away from the wiring. Logging the find later, the CO had indicated the wiring was okay but a lot of "loggers" had indicated their concerns, including me. Not a good hide.

[+frinklabs]

Like this one?

 

 

Would it be considered a spoiler to reveal the GC code on this?

[+briansnat]

Came across a cache the other day that was a magnetic container attached to the underside of one of those big green electrical cabinets you see outside some retail establishments. On the side of the cabinet there is a big sign that says "Danger - Shock Hazard" or something to that effect. I'm assuming this is bad cache placement as those cabinets could become charged if there is some sort of failure of the internal circuitry? Should this be reported and archived?

 

This is sort of the type of chassis I'm talking about

 

 

Notice the chain link fence completely surrounding that box to keep kids, drunks, and fools out? Me neither.

 

In 21st century America, that means it's a dead certainty that for all practical purposes it's impossible for the exterior of the box to become a hazard (short of someone attacking it with a backhoe, or leaning on it during a lightning storm). The parts that can be dangerous will be locked up securely.

 

This is not to say it's a good idea to put a cache there, but it's not an electrical hazard.

 

You would think. They also don't put fences around manhole covers and street lights, but they can be hazardous.

 

Anyway, these objects are usually private property and should require express permission from the owner.

[Clan Riffster]

Anyway, these objects are usually private property and should require express permission from the owner.

If only we could convince our Reviewers of this...

[4wheelin_fool]

Like this one?

 

 

Would it be considered a spoiler to reveal the GC code on this?

 

That should be archived.

[knowschad]

Like this one?

 

 

Would it be considered a spoiler to reveal the GC code on this?

 

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

Yes, please post a spoiler.

[+luvvinbird]

Like this one?

 

 

Would it be considered a spoiler to reveal the GC code on this?

Hi frinklabs! If that's the one you got on 10/01/2009 and I got on 05/04/2011, then we're talking about the same cache. The CO has a disclaimer in bold red lettering stating it's safe but if you don't want to grab it then don't. That photo clearly indicates the safety concerns some cachers might have.

[4wheelin_fool]

Like this one?

 

 

Would it be considered a spoiler to reveal the GC code on this?

Hi frinklabs! If that's the one you got on 10/01/2009 and I got on 05/04/2011, then we're talking about the same cache. The CO has a disclaimer in bold red lettering stating it's safe but if you don't want to grab it then don't. That photo clearly indicates the safety concerns some cachers might have.

 

GC1WNYQ ?

 

Hidden among live wiring and without permission. That's the type of hide that gives geocaching a bloody nose.

[Mr.Yuck]

Like this one?

 

Would it be considered a spoiler to reveal the GC code on this?

Hi frinklabs! If that's the one you got on 10/01/2009 and I got on 05/04/2011, then we're talking about the same cache. The CO has a disclaimer in bold red lettering stating it's safe but if you don't want to grab it then don't. That photo clearly indicates the safety concerns some cachers might have.

 

GC1WNYQ ?

 

Hidden among live wiring and without permission. That's the type of hide that gives geocaching a bloody nose.

 

By the way, snipped the pic out. Oh c'mon people, it's fine. The 7th grade cache owner says so on the cache page.

[+frinklabs]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

 

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

[4wheelin_fool]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

 

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

[Mr.Yuck]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

 

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

Yeah, I can see that for like the side of a cliff or something. But Teenagers placing caches in parking lots without permission in proximity to exposed hydro wires? (as you probably refer to them in Ontario) I'd hit the archive button on that one. Making it the 11th of his 17 hides to get archived.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[GOF and Bacall]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

 

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

Yeah, I can see that for like the side of a cliff or something. But Teenagers placing caches in parking lots without permission in proximity to exposed hydro wires? (as you probably refer to them in Ontario) I'd hit the archive button on that one.

 

If you take safety out of the equation are there any other issues? Perhaps one of permission? I don't think it is a far reach to conclude that it is extremely unlikely that property owner would grant permission for such a hide.

[knowschad]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

 

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

Yeah, I can see that for like the side of a cliff or something. But Teenagers placing caches in parking lots without permission in proximity to exposed hydro wires? (as you probably refer to them in Ontario) I'd hit the archive button on that one.

 

If you take safety out of the equation are there any other issues? Perhaps one of permission? I don't think it is a far reach to conclude that it is extremely unlikely that property owner would grant permission for such a hide.

I suppose they are hesitant to start a precedent which might leave them legally vulnerable to a cache where somebody got hurt but they didn't happen to catch the danger aspect. Not to mention that it would cause many caches that some of us love to be archived. In the long run, it is probably a Good Thing.

[+GeoGeeBee]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

 

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

That post looks awfully rusty. Are you sure those wires are live? Is this some sort of abandoned shopping center, where the electricity was turned off long ago?

[+luvvinbird]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

 

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

 

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

That post looks awfully rusty. Are you sure those wires are live? Is this some sort of abandoned shopping center, where the electricity was turned off long ago?

It's a working light in an active mall.

[4wheelin_fool]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

That post looks awfully rusty. Are you sure those wires are live? Is this some sort of abandoned shopping center, where the electricity was turned off long ago?

It's a working light in an active mall.

 

Since the reviewer is very diligent about applying the guidelines with regard to leaving safety out of the process, they also are most likely aware of explicit permission which the cache must have. The rusty decor, and randomness of the wiring only makes the cache appear more dangerous, like a year round Halloween display. I'm certain that the land manager must know all about it, and is ready for any calls from the bomb squad, and won't press any charges if there is severe damage from the electricity shorting out and starting a fire, as well as paying for extra insurance to cover any silly, frivolous lawsuits.

 

Curious person: Hey you there, why are you rooting through those live wires?

 

Geocacher: I'm looking for a geocache! This must have permission, or they wouldnt list it. These wires are perfectly safe anyhow, as it says so on the page!

 

[+Team WorldTour]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

NO ONE GETS OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE! -Hank Williams Sr, Jr, & III.

[+Flintstone5611]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

NO ONE GETS OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE! -Hank Williams Sr, Jr, & III.

 

LOL, Nice! The funny thing is that for all the barking and yelling about the safety of it, it really comes back to permission. Safety is the onus of the user and not the responsibility of TPTB (at least until they get a phone call from the fuzz or a lawyer). I have seen ridiculously dangerous caches in the woods that are viewed as "adventurous" because they are in a more natural setting. It is a weird double standard.

[Clan Riffster]

It is a weird double standard.

I would probably call it a single standard. The standard in question being permission. For the purposes of listing a cache, danger is irrelevant. You could probably hide one in an active volcano, and as long as you had explicit permission for the hide, I would bet it would get published.

[Mr.Yuck]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

NO ONE GETS OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE! -Hank Williams Sr, Jr, & III.

 

LOL, Nice! The funny thing is that for all the barking and yelling about the safety of it, it really comes back to permission. Safety is the onus of the user and not the responsibility of TPTB (at least until they get a phone call from the fuzz or a lawyer). I have seen ridiculously dangerous caches in the woods that are viewed as "adventurous" because they are in a more natural setting. It is a weird double standard.

 

I assume our world touring friend there didn't read that the cache in question was hidden in a parking lot by a 12 year old kid. Now the kid might have wrote that in his profile in 2009 when he joined, and he's 14 now. Big deal. I just happen to have a 12 yr. old 7th grader myself. If he hid a cache in a store parking lot, and told adults on a cache page "it's safe, there's plastic on the wires", I would find that to be one of the most preposterous things I'd ever heard. Maybe that's just my kid though. And there's a better chance of me being hit by lightning as I type this that that kid has permission. And guess what, I just finished typing this and hit enter.

[+luvvinbird]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

That post looks awfully rusty. Are you sure those wires are live? Is this some sort of abandoned shopping center, where the electricity was turned off long ago?

It's a working light in an active mall.

 

Since the reviewer is very diligent about applying the guidelines with regard to leaving safety out of the process, they also are most likely aware of explicit permission which the cache must have. The rusty decor, and randomness of the wiring only makes the cache appear more dangerous, like a year round Halloween display. I'm certain that the land manager must know all about it, and is ready for any calls from the bomb squad, and won't press any charges if there is severe damage from the electricity shorting out and starting a fire, as well as paying for extra insurance to cover any silly, frivolous lawsuits.

 

Curious person: Hey you there, why are you rooting through those live wires?

 

Geocacher: I'm looking for a geocache! This must have permission, or they wouldnt list it. These wires are perfectly safe anyhow, as it says so on the page!

 

Well, if it's any consolation, the wires aren't live because I stuck my hand in there to get the cache and I lived to tell about it. Maybe it's as you say, a clever ruse to fool the geocacher into thinking a rather ordinary cache is something a whole lot more....and maybe the CO jammed a bunch of dummy wires in there to appear so.

Edited October 27, 2011 by luvvinbird

[Mr.Yuck]

Forum is not cooperating with me tonight, see next post.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[Mr.Yuck]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

That post looks awfully rusty. Are you sure those wires are live? Is this some sort of abandoned shopping center, where the electricity was turned off long ago?

It's a working light in an active mall.

 

Since the reviewer is very diligent about applying the guidelines with regard to leaving safety out of the process, they also are most likely aware of explicit permission which the cache must have. The rusty decor, and randomness of the wiring only makes the cache appear more dangerous, like a year round Halloween display. I'm certain that the land manager must know all about it, and is ready for any calls from the bomb squad, and won't press any charges if there is severe damage from the electricity shorting out and starting a fire, as well as paying for extra insurance to cover any silly, frivolous lawsuits.

 

Curious person: Hey you there, why are you rooting through those live wires?

 

Geocacher: I'm looking for a geocache! This must have permission, or they wouldnt list it. These wires are perfectly safe anyhow, as it says so on the page!

 

Well, if it's any consolation, the wires aren't live because I stuck my hand in there to get the cache and I lived to tell about it. Maybe it's as you say, a clever ruse to fool the geocacher into thinking a rather ordinary cache is something a whole lot more....and maybe the CO jammed a bunch of dummy wires in there to appear so.

 

Do you have me on ignore? The cache was hidden by a 12 yr. old. He did not put dummy wires in there to fool Geocachers. Sure, I've removed and replaced outlets in my house with "plastic on the wires" (what us adults would call insulation) and lived to tell about it. Of course they weren't exposed to the elements outside in Toronto Canada.

 

EDIT to fix quotes.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+luvvinbird]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

That post looks awfully rusty. Are you sure those wires are live? Is this some sort of abandoned shopping center, where the electricity was turned off long ago?

It's a working light in an active mall.

 

Since the reviewer is very diligent about applying the guidelines with regard to leaving safety out of the process, they also are most likely aware of explicit permission which the cache must have. The rusty decor, and randomness of the wiring only makes the cache appear more dangerous, like a year round Halloween display. I'm certain that the land manager must know all about it, and is ready for any calls from the bomb squad, and won't press any charges if there is severe damage from the electricity shorting out and starting a fire, as well as paying for extra insurance to cover any silly, frivolous lawsuits.

 

Curious person: Hey you there, why are you rooting through those live wires?

 

Geocacher: I'm looking for a geocache! This must have permission, or they wouldnt list it. These wires are perfectly safe anyhow, as it says so on the page!

 

Well, if it's any consolation, the wires aren't live because I stuck my hand in there to get the cache and I lived to tell about it. Maybe it's as you say, a clever ruse to fool the geocacher into thinking a rather ordinary cache is something a whole lot more....and maybe the CO jammed a bunch of dummy wires in there to appear so.

 

Do you have me on ignore? The cache was hidden by a 12 yr. old. He did not put dummy wires in there to fool Geocachers. Sure, I've removed and replaced outlets in my house with "plastic on the wires" (what us adults would call insulation) and lived to tell about it. Of course they weren't exposed to the elements outside in Toronto Canada.

 

EDIT to fix quotes.

Oh, did you say something? I wasn't paying attention (lol).

[Mr.Yuck]

You mean, you didn't post an NA on it?

I only advised bringing a non-conductive extraction tool.

Meanwhile, someone else may have contacted TPTB resulting in this Post Reviewer Note:

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

The wires are not designed to be moved around frequently. What will eventually occur is that the cap will come off, where they are twisted together, resulting in exposed live wiring, or the wire inside the sheathing will break and arc.

I supppose it's just another Darwinian experiment perhaps.

That post looks awfully rusty. Are you sure those wires are live? Is this some sort of abandoned shopping center, where the electricity was turned off long ago?

It's a working light in an active mall.

 

Since the reviewer is very diligent about applying the guidelines with regard to leaving safety out of the process, they also are most likely aware of explicit permission which the cache must have. The rusty decor, and randomness of the wiring only makes the cache appear more dangerous, like a year round Halloween display. I'm certain that the land manager must know all about it, and is ready for any calls from the bomb squad, and won't press any charges if there is severe damage from the electricity shorting out and starting a fire, as well as paying for extra insurance to cover any silly, frivolous lawsuits.

 

Curious person: Hey you there, why are you rooting through those live wires?

 

Geocacher: I'm looking for a geocache! This must have permission, or they wouldnt list it. These wires are perfectly safe anyhow, as it says so on the page!

 

Well, if it's any consolation, the wires aren't live because I stuck my hand in there to get the cache and I lived to tell about it. Maybe it's as you say, a clever ruse to fool the geocacher into thinking a rather ordinary cache is something a whole lot more....and maybe the CO jammed a bunch of dummy wires in there to appear so.

 

Do you have me on ignore? The cache was hidden by a 12 yr. old. He did not put dummy wires in there to fool Geocachers. Sure, I've removed and replaced outlets in my house with "plastic on the wires" (what us adults would call insulation) and lived to tell about it. Of course they weren't exposed to the elements outside in Toronto Canada.

 

EDIT to fix quotes.

Oh, did you say something? I wasn't paying attention (lol).

 

Funny guy. Oh, I'm done here anyways. I don't want some German guy to come along and tell me to get a life or anything.

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache was hidden by a 12 yr. old. He did not put dummy wires in there to fool Geocachers. Sure, I've removed and replaced outlets in my house with "plastic on the wires" (what us adults would call insulation) and lived to tell about it. Of course they weren't exposed to the elements outside in Toronto Canada.

 

You are very much aware that just because the cache page says it's safe doesnt mean that it is, and the same can be said of the hider's profile.

 

How do you know that it's really a kid? It could be someone in their 40s who wanted to see what would happen. A cache which involves rooting around in live wires on a rusty lampost on private property should obviously not have been published or found by anyone, let alone 115 people. Perhaps it's a reporter who wants to do an article on geocaching, and needs some info to see how foolish some cachers are. There could be a videocamera mounted nearby for laughs.

 

Do we really need more rules, rather than common sense? There is a "no digging" without explicit permission rule because it makes cachers look bad. Do we really need to wait until someone gets fried to make a decision about something? Does the reviewer really need to play semantics with the guidelines, when it is obvious that the cache makes us all look like fools?

 

Is the cacher is checking on a regular basis to see if it's still safe? Most of the other hides are abandoned. Including the one hidden in the bushes in someone else's front yard..

[knowschad]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

NO ONE GETS OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE! -Hank Williams Sr, Jr, & III.

Thanks for the helpful reply.

[+L0ne.R]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

NO ONE GETS OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE! -Hank Williams Sr, Jr, & III.

 

LOL, Nice! The funny thing is that for all the barking and yelling about the safety of it, it really comes back to permission. Safety is the onus of the user and not the responsibility of TPTB (at least until they get a phone call from the fuzz or a lawyer). I have seen ridiculously dangerous caches in the woods that are viewed as "adventurous" because they are in a more natural setting. It is a weird double standard.

 

I assume our world touring friend there didn't read that the cache in question was hidden in a parking lot by a 12 year old kid. Now the kid might have wrote that in his profile in 2009 when he joined, and he's 14 now. Big deal. I just happen to have a 12 yr. old 7th grader myself. If he hid a cache in a store parking lot, and told adults on a cache page "it's safe, there's plastic on the wires", I would find that to be one of the most preposterous things I'd ever heard. Maybe that's just my kid though. And there's a better chance of me being hit by lightning as I type this that that kid has permission. And guess what, I just finished typing this and hit enter.

 

And this is an example of why I don't think kids (under 18) should post caches on GC.com without explicit parental consent and supervision. The TOU says "By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning." I think there should at least be a checkbox in the form with the above TOU statement. Of course, some kids will check the box anyone but some might think twice.

[Mr.Yuck]

The cache was hidden by a 12 yr. old. He did not put dummy wires in there to fool Geocachers. Sure, I've removed and replaced outlets in my house with "plastic on the wires" (what us adults would call insulation) and lived to tell about it. Of course they weren't exposed to the elements outside in Toronto Canada.

 

You are very much aware that just because the cache page says it's safe doesnt mean that it is, and the same can be said of the hider's profile.

 

How do you know that it's really a kid? It could be someone in their 40s who wanted to see what would happen. A cache which involves rooting around in live wires on a rusty lampost on private property should obviously not have been published or found by anyone, let alone 115 people. Perhaps it's a reporter who wants to do an article on geocaching, and needs some info to see how foolish some cachers are. There could be a videocamera mounted nearby for laughs.

 

 

Hey, I thought I was done here! Well, I suppose someone could pose as a 12 year old kid (or and adult who "just doesn't get it"), and hide 17 horrific caches as a zany gag, to prove that there will be an endless parade of smiley seekers showing up at anthing listed on this website, but there's no need for it. Happens often enough for real.

[Mr.Yuck]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

NO ONE GETS OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE! -Hank Williams Sr, Jr, & III.

Thanks for the helpful reply.

 

I just realized he's the same guy who started the "What the H-E double hockey sticks is wrong with the German Reveiwers" thread, so I'm sure he was like angry forum guy yesterday. Don't be that guy.

[knowschad]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

NO ONE GETS OUT OF THIS WORLD ALIVE! -Hank Williams Sr, Jr, & III.

Thanks for the helpful reply.

 

I just realized he's the same guy who started the "What the H-E double hockey sticks is wrong with the German Reveiwers" thread, so I'm sure he was like angry forum guy yesterday. Don't be that guy.

 

Yup, same guy also that brought his German Reviewer complaint to the What's the Deal with the Washington Reviewers thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=284226&view=findpost&p=4877269

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache was hidden by a 12 yr. old. He did not put dummy wires in there to fool Geocachers. Sure, I've removed and replaced outlets in my house with "plastic on the wires" (what us adults would call insulation) and lived to tell about it. Of course they weren't exposed to the elements outside in Toronto Canada.

 

You are very much aware that just because the cache page says it's safe doesnt mean that it is, and the same can be said of the hider's profile.

 

How do you know that it's really a kid? It could be someone in their 40s who wanted to see what would happen. A cache which involves rooting around in live wires on a rusty lampost on private property should obviously not have been published or found by anyone, let alone 115 people. Perhaps it's a reporter who wants to do an article on geocaching, and needs some info to see how foolish some cachers are. There could be a videocamera mounted nearby for laughs.

 

Hey, I thought I was done here! Well, I suppose someone could pose as a 12 year old kid (or and adult who "just doesn't get it"), and hide 17 horrific caches as a zany gag, to prove that there will be an endless parade of smiley seekers showing up at anthing listed on this website, but there's no need for it. Happens often enough for real.

 

Kids make mistakes and do nutty things, it's okay.

 

However in this situation it should have been caught early on and stopped, rather than perpetuated by adults who should know better. I know that it's always easier to look the other way, but c'mon.

Edited October 27, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

Wow. You all need to get a life. Is this what you are arguing about? Go find a cache and quit bitching about it.

 

Yes, that's the same advice that everyone gave you after your last thread.

 

Glad you took notice

Edited October 27, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[CACAHUETES]

Shmeh. Never found one or come across one before, so I don't really care. Oh yeah, I wouldn't advise letting kids go near a souped-up hyper-charged electrical voltage cabinet. Stay safe, cachers

 

capn 'Huetes out

[+briansnat]

Anyway, these objects are usually private property and should require express permission from the owner.

If only we could convince our Reviewers of this...

 

Most reviewers I know would not knowingly publish a cache on this sort of equipment.

[Clan Riffster]

Anyway, these objects are usually private property and should require express permission from the owner.

If only we could convince our Reviewers of this...

 

Most reviewers I know would not knowingly publish a cache on this sort of equipment.

Yeah, I know. I think it's at that point that the onus of responsibility falls to us, the players who seek out the caches. As noted by the 115 logs on the aforementioned rusty, exposed wires light pole, too many of us refuse to get involved. Unless it just happens to be in his/her home turf, a Reviewer isn't going to know a cache is on a transformer box when it gets submitted. They do their Reviewer thing, check the available data to ensure guideline compliance, and publish it. The rest of us, on the other hand, go out and find the dern things, too often ignoring the fact that it really shouldn't be there.

 

It probably doesn't help when a Reviewer is made aware of an issue like this, and rather than realize there may be a significant permission issue, opt instead to limit their response to just the perceived dangers complaint.

[knowschad]

Shmeh. Never found one or come across one before, so I don't really care. Oh yeah, I wouldn't advise letting kids go near a souped-up hyper-charged electrical voltage cabinet. Stay safe, cachers

 

capn 'Huetes out

 

You astound.

[Mr.Yuck]

Anyway, these objects are usually private property and should require express permission from the owner.

If only we could convince our Reviewers of this...

 

Most reviewers I know would not knowingly publish a cache on this sort of equipment.

Yeah, I know. I think it's at that point that the onus of responsibility falls to us, the players who seek out the caches. As noted by the 115 logs on the aforementioned rusty, exposed wires light pole, too many of us refuse to get involved. Unless it just happens to be in his/her home turf, a Reviewer isn't going to know a cache is on a transformer box when it gets submitted. They do their Reviewer thing, check the available data to ensure guideline compliance, and publish it. The rest of us, on the other hand, go out and find the dern things, too often ignoring the fact that it really shouldn't be there.

 

It probably doesn't help when a Reviewer is made aware of an issue like this, and rather than realize there may be a significant permission issue, opt instead to limit their response to just the perceived dangers complaint.

 

Despite threatening to leave, I think Keystone intervention is the only thing that's going to keep me out of this thread. Someone had said there was such a note on the cache page, but I didn't feel like dealing with the new Twitterization of Geocaching.com, and scrolling down for the log.

 

I will stick up for that reviewer, whom I know personally. Those of us who know often forget, and most people don't know, that there is a super top-secret reviewer only forum where they often have threads such as "would you publish this cache?" or "would you archive this cache?", and come to a consensus. It's quite possible that cache was discussed, complete with the same picture in the thread.

 

Or he could have just shot from the hip, and posted that note on his own.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I think it's at that point that the onus of responsibility falls to us, the players who seek out the caches. As noted by the 115 logs on the aforementioned rusty, exposed wires light pole, too many of us refuse to get involved.

 

Once, at an event, I heard a reviewer say: "Yeah, that cache is horrible. But if nobody has the guts to post an NA log, it's going to be around for a while."

[Clan Riffster]

I think it's at that point that the onus of responsibility falls to us, the players who seek out the caches. As noted by the 115 logs on the aforementioned rusty, exposed wires light pole, too many of us refuse to get involved.

 

Once, at an event, I heard a reviewer say: "Yeah, that cache is horrible. But if nobody has the guts to post an NA log, it's going to be around for a while."

That does make me wonder...

Do TPTB consider it bad form for a Reviewer to archive a cache without a valid complaint?

For instance, talking about the light pole listed above. If I posted a Needs Archived, and the only complaint I gave was based on perceived danger, and the Reviewer poked around, recognizing that it was on private property, and did not have explicit permission as required by the guidelines, would it be bad form for the Reviewer to address the permission aspect even though it was never part of the complaint?

[4wheelin_fool]

The reviewer did archive another of the cache owner's hides due to being on private property, but it's a complete mystery why he didn't act on the one hidden among live wires in a lampost on private property. Perhaps there are many others like this?

 

This cache is sitting in a bush in sombody's front yard on private property. There is also now a giant hole on the bush where people have been grabbing the cache. Not good.

Edited October 28, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+CanadianRockies]

I suppose they are hesitant to start a precedent which might leave them legally vulnerable to a cache where somebody got hurt but they didn't happen to catch the danger aspect.

If you can cite anything that supports such a legal vulnerability, then you might want to contribute to this thread: Judging danger means legal liability? Uban Myth? So far, nobody has been able to back up such a claim.

Edited October 28, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+lazydawg]

I think that if the reviewers start checking maps to see if the cache is on private property LPCs will be a thing of the past.All LPCs in my area are on private property and I would be willing to bet anything that none have permission to be there. On this particular cache, I think it should be archived, anyone that has worked around wires knows that the insulation is going to crack eventually and if you touch that while touching the pole, the lamp is not the only thing that is going to be lit up.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I suppose they are hesitant to start a precedent which might leave them legally vulnerable to a cache where somebody got hurt but they didn't happen to catch the danger aspect.

If you can cite anything that supports such a legal vulnerability, then you might want to contribute to this thread: Judging danger means legal liability? Uban Myth? So far, nobody has been able to back up such a claim.

Looks to me like someone did back up such a claim, but it fell on deaf ears.

 

Remember, having to defend an action in court is very expensive, even if you win.

[+sbell111]

I think that if the reviewers start checking maps to see if the cache is on private property LPCs will be a thing of the past.All LPCs in my area are on private property and I would be willing to bet anything that none have permission to be there. On this particular cache, I think it should be archived, anyone that has worked around wires knows that the insulation is going to crack eventually and if you touch that while touching the pole, the lamp is not the only thing that is going to be lit up.

A few thoughts:

1. Many LPCs are placed with explicit permission.

2. Caches on private property do not necessarily violate the guidelines.

3. I think that you may be misreading the 'permission' guideline.

4. Whether or not a cache is dangerous is not a reason to archive. I suppose that one could argue that a cache with a hidden danger should be archived, but this particular cache's 'danger' is far from hidden.