After tragic death of experienced geocacher - what needs to change?

[+Snoogans]

In fact, the German reviewer team well before this unfortunate incident took it upon themselves to reexamine the trend of caches in "Lost Places." I will not summarize the entire scope of those efforts here...

If you did not read the exchange between reviewer and owner prior to publication, don't make assumptions about what was said or not said.

I mean this in the gentlest way possible, because I respect and admire the job you do both in reviewing your area and in moderating these boards. It's a tireless and usually thankless job.

 

But Groundspeak doesn't have a culture of transparency as a company. I don't think Groundspeak gets to have it both ways - they can't keep everything behind the scenes and responses to an absolute minimum, and also demand that people not try to make assumptions and make sense of the situation and try to fill in some Groundspeak-created gaps in a case like this.

 

Something very awful happened here. It's perfectly reasonable - human in fact - for people to try to figure out how it could have been handled differently. If Groundspeak wants to keep their reviewer-CO conversations private and wants to keep their reviewer-only forums behind closed doors I *totally* understand that. But maintaining that secrecy and also admonishing a community for trying to figure out what led to the horribleness of what happened and for wanting to prevent it from happening in the future, that doesn't really work.

 

Both things don't get to be.

 

Well spoken.

[+Snoogans]

But maintaining that secrecy and also admonishing a community for trying to figure out what led to the horribleness of what happened and for wanting to prevent it from happening in the future, that doesn't really work.

 

Both things don't get to be.

Sorry for creating that perceived inconsistency. I came here in an effort to provide facts and increased transparency. To resolve the perceived inconsistency, I won't post further to this thread. It's threads like this one that help me appreciate why the majority of the reviewer team never posts in this forum.

 

Lepstone,

 

There has never EVER been a thread like this one. The implied "pack of wolves reference" is not appreciated and not appropriate coming from your position. ***personal filter engaged***

[+cheech gang]

But Groundspeak doesn't have a culture of transparency as a company. I don't think Groundspeak gets to have it both ways - they can't keep everything behind the scenes and responses to an absolute minimum, and also demand that people not try to make assumptions and make sense of the situation and try to fill in some Groundspeak-created gaps in a case like this.

 

 

I agree. As in most internet forums, if speculation and conjecture are allowed to naturally ferment without infusion of actual facts they eventually morph into pseudo-fact. Other picayune topics are argued here ad nauseum and don't derserve input from TPTB. This is not one of those topics.

[+ArcherDragoon]

But maintaining that secrecy and also admonishing a community for trying to figure out what led to the horribleness of what happened and for wanting to prevent it from happening in the future, that doesn't really work.

 

Both things don't get to be.

Sorry for creating that perceived inconsistency. I came here in an effort to provide facts and increased transparency. To resolve the perceived inconsistency, I won't post further to this thread. It's threads like this one that help me appreciate why the majority of the reviewer team never posts in this forum.

 

Lepstone,

 

There has never EVER been a thread like this one. The implied "pack of wolves reference" is not appreciated and not appropriate coming from your position. ***personal filter engaged***

I don't know...the lackey that posted earlier was jumped...and now keystone...seems like the "pack of wolves reference" as you put it (though, I don't see that in keystone's post in my opinion) seems correct now..

[veit]

I didnt see anyone jumping anyone. I think most of us expressed gratitude that they took time to post and bring in more facts and opionions. I think most of us are also aware of the fact that the people who can actually take decisions have not posted here. We are waiting for that (not necessarily post in this thread, but declare publically how Groundspeak as the platform provider for our community is going to address this). It's ok to take some time to think things through, but in the end, Groundspeak will have to react. Who is taking ultimate decisions there anyway - only Jeremy, is he the boss?

 

So yes, I for one absolutely appreciate volunteers like Sandy and Keystone taking the time to explain some of their thoughts to us normal community members here. However, I'd appreciate it even more if they started pressuring Jeremy or whoever calls the shots behind the scenes to start acting and addressing this issue (and some part of me still hopes that that big smart team is still huddling together in Seattle right now and will blow us all away with their well-thought plan and response).

[Clan Riffster]

However, if there is a big 'ol hole at GZ,...

Most of the dangers associated with holes in the ground are related directly to gravity. If only we had some means to see the ground immediately prior to our individual feet making contact with it... Since, presumably, bipedal life forms lack the ability to guide their vision downward at a sharp enough angle to, "watch our steps", perhaps additional warnings would come in handy...

 

If you're afraid to speak up, do like the reviewers do and call in a third party that can take the "heat". Nothing wrong with having an outsider perform a task for you so long as he's doing on your behalf and you have intimate knowledge of the problem.

I agree that there are times when a third party can come in handy. I'm just not sure that geocaching is one of those times. If we are talking about trying to get an illegal cache archived, and for some reason, I'm too shy, scared, whatever, to fire off an N/A log, I would simply send an e-mail to the local Reviewer. I lnow it's been suggested that, in this instance, the local Reviewer is part pf the problem, which I have a tough time believing, but assuming this is true, and my e-mail failed to get the cache archived, my next step would involve taking a lot of pictures, speaking with someone with authority at ground zero who can say, for sure, that Joe Public is not allowed to play at that location, and forwarding all of that information to Groundspeak. If Groundspeak refused to archive the listing at that point, I would just walk away, shaking my head, figuring I had done everything I could.

 

When I mentioned this before in this thread, I had hypes like this one in mind

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=93821766-5ea2-4d09-b0b8-6cb88a38d429 which I regard as dangerous as they serve as temptation for some cachers to dare things which are unsuitable for them just to belong to a certain group. Several of those who qualified by this and the caches of the series later on mentioned in nearly all their logs that they are proud and honorful sons of Sir Gaylord did this in a way that it somehow created the atmosphere of "hey, look we are the cool heros and the rest of you, you are nothing". This is just an example - I have observed similar phenomena in several countries, including Germany.

 

But wouldn't that be kind of true for any 5/5? I can't help but think that a 5/5, by its very nature, has the potential to be dangerous and difficult, so anyone who achieves the lofty goal of signing the log is likely to be viewed by others in their community as some sort of icon. I know when I look at the Psycho Urban Cache Series by Vinny & Sue, I am sorely tempted to add my moniker to the logbook. But since I enjoy the little things in life, such as breathing, I have taken great care in evaluating my skill set, recognizing that I lack the skills necessary for such endeavors. I might be willing to blame the cache itself for my temptation, but if I were to conciously decide to go from simply wnting to do one of those, to actually attempting one of those, I would no longer be holding the cache itself at fault. Anything that happened as a result of my decision would be my fault, not the cache's fault. Maybe that's the attitude we need to foster in the community? "Be aware of your abilities, and don't cache outside of them just to increase your find count" Maybe? Peer pressure has proven to be an effective tool in other hobbies, so it's possible it could have an effect in this one.

 

Is it also because Germany has such a large revenue, that Groundspeak would be unlikely to put a damper on illegal activity for fear of a backlash, creating a loss of revenue? Bye Willi. Groundspeak has your money.

 

Excellent post had you left out "Groundspeak has your money."

 

(yes, it's in the guidelines, but it's not enforced), and it's absolutely reasonable to wonder why.

I agree that this is a reasnable question. I have often asked myself why Groundspeak allows guideline violations, (permission*), for caches in business parking lots, and why Groundspeak allows guideline violations, (proximity**), for power trails, and the only answer I can think of is money. As the hobby has gone more mainstream, it seems that more of our fellow cachers are oriented toward the caches on the lower end of the D/T spectrum. If Groundspeak were to enforce their own guidelines, they could lose a lot of income, as I imagine many of those folks who hide/find P&Gs and power trail caches would take their collective balls and go home.

 

Asking why Groundspeak allows guideline violations, (legal access***), for caches in a heavily saturated country seems like a perfectly reasonable question. While it's true that the Reviewers can claim, at the time of publication, that a particular cache showed no evidence of being in a location which the public is not allowed, this claim may be too nieve to hold water, especially when viewed through the eyes of players like Veit and Cezanne, who are able to determine that caches they've never been to are illegal. The claim falls further away from reality when the Reviewers receive notice, in the form of an N/A log, that a cache is illegal, and do nothing.

 

*1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

Obtain the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

 

**1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

 

***1.1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines

All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it.

 

I will never forget the feeling of the old days, when beeing a cacher was something special and required balls.

Otis, thank you for coming to this thread. While I disagree with almost everything you wrote, (It's OK to disagree), I do admire the fact that you were willing to come into this thread and express your views on the matter. Since I suspect that others will address your bragging about committing criminal acts just to get a smiley, I'll pass on that aspect of your post and focus on this statement.

 

Do you really believe that caching can only be special when it requires breaking the law? Do you likewise really believe that, to be a "Manly Man" cacher means you have to commit crimes? I ask because I know other people who believe exactly as you do. They measure their manliness by how many crimes they commit, and consider any evening spent without breaking the law to be monotonous. I'm just not sure that embracing such views is good for this game.

 

What I am saying is that these caches are way more fun BECAUSE of the risk, and if you don't want to waste your life for a piece of paper, maybe it's not a good idea to do it, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't do it.

Other than the rare few who want the whole world covered in bubble wrap, I don't think you'll find anyone who has a problem with risky hides. There are many outdoors hobbies that carry inherent risks. Skydiving, rock climbing, etc. Where the problem lies, in my opinion, is with the thug life mentality that believes one must actually commit crimes to feed their need for risking themselves. Being a risk junky is a noble and honorable profession. Heck, one of the riskiest caches I know of is perfectly legal. If you find yourself on my side of the pond, you should give it a shot. Please add my name to the logbook if you do.

 

And I don't call anyone wimps...

True. You called them eunuchs, or geldings, lacking testicles.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I didnt see anyone jumping anyone. I think most of us expressed gratitude that they took time to post and bring in more facts and opionions. I think most of us are also aware of the fact that the people who can actually take decisions have not posted here. We are waiting for that (not necessarily post in this thread, but declare publically how Groundspeak as the platform provider for our community is going to address this). It's ok to take some time to think things through, but in the end, Groundspeak will have to react. Who is taking ultimate decisions there anyway - only Jeremy, is he the boss?

 

So yes, I for one absolutely appreciate volunteers like Sandy and Keystone taking the time to explain some of their thoughts to us normal community members here. However, I'd appreciate it even more if they started pressuring Jeremy or whoever calls the shots behind the scenes to start acting and addressing this issue (and some part of me still hopes that that big smart team is still huddling together in Seattle right now and will blow us all away with their well-thought plan and response).

 

Still expecting someone else to hold your hand and keep you safe? Do what needs to be done and log NA on those caches that don't meet the guidelines and have been placed in illegal locations. If you HAD done that earlier, someone need not have died.

 

John

[veit]

Still expecting someone else to hold your hand and keep you safe? Do what needs to be done and log NA on those caches that don't meet the guidelines and have been placed in illegal locations. If you HAD done that earlier, someone need not have died.

 

Dear John, I would really appreciate if you could edit your post. It's the first time I am truly offended in this entire thread. I didn't know this cache even existed, I had not been there, I came here to find a solution to prevent this in the future and have spent countless hours trying to get the best ideas out there. Suggesting I could have done anyhing to prevent Willi's death is outrageous. Your post ist tasteless, and quite frankly a disgrace to this usually very respectful thread.

[+Snoogans]

But maintaining that secrecy and also admonishing a community for trying to figure out what led to the horribleness of what happened and for wanting to prevent it from happening in the future, that doesn't really work.

 

Both things don't get to be.

Sorry for creating that perceived inconsistency. I came here in an effort to provide facts and increased transparency. To resolve the perceived inconsistency, I won't post further to this thread. It's threads like this one that help me appreciate why the majority of the reviewer team never posts in this forum.

 

Lepstone,

 

There has never EVER been a thread like this one. The implied "pack of wolves reference" is not appreciated and not appropriate coming from your position. ***personal filter engaged***

I don't know...the lackey that posted earlier was jumped...and now keystone...seems like the "pack of wolves reference" as you put it (though, I don't see that in keystone's post in my opinion) seems correct now..

 

How so?

 

I have met Keystone/Lep on a few occasions and have had nothing but respect for him on and offline. I hope I'm not wrong in believing that we are friends, at least in the geocaching context.

 

If I spoke out of turn in an open forum I would hope my friends would have called me on it.

 

The pack of wolves implication is correct in my perception. (I won't speak for others but I can suspect.) That is not in evidence on this thread, but I will admit that I STILL haven't had the chance to read every word so I am unaware of the other jumping you refrenced. Family and the seasaon come first. It will probably be next week before I have finished every word of this thread.

 

Those words were unwarrented. He should have stopped short of there IMO.

[+Otis.Gore]

I will never forget the feeling of the old days, when beeing a cacher was something special and required balls.

Otis, thank you for coming to this thread. While I disagree with almost everything you wrote, (It's OK to disagree), I do admire the fact that you were willing to come into this thread and express your views on the matter. Since I suspect that others will address your bragging about committing criminal acts just to get a smiley, I'll pass on that aspect of your post and focus on this statement.

 

Do you really believe that caching can only be special when it requires breaking the law? Do you likewise really believe that, to be a "Manly Man" cacher means you have to commit crimes? They measure their manliness by how many crimes they commit, and consider any evening spent without breaking the law to be monotonous. I'm just not sure that embracing such views is good for this game.

 

What I am saying is that these caches are way more fun BECAUSE of the risk, and if you don't want to waste your life for a piece of paper, maybe it's not a good idea to do it, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't do it.

Other than the rare few who want the whole world covered in bubble wrap, I don't think you'll find anyone who has a problem with risky hides. There are many outdoors hobbies that carry inherent risks. Skydiving, rock climbing, etc. Where the problem lies, in my opinion, is with the thug life mentality that believes one must actually commit crimes to feed their need for risking themselves. Being a risk junky is a noble and honorable profession. Heck, one of the riskiest caches I know of is perfectly legal. If you find yourself on my side of the pond, you should give it a shot. Please add my name to the logbook if you do.

 

First off, I never said that geocaching is only great if you break the law, and of course there are T5 caches that require even more balls than breaking the law.

But honestly, it adds to the thrill.(And I am sure everyone has expirienced that at least once in their life...the thrill of doing something forbidden)

Still, it's not like the sole purpose in my life is to break the law to get a thrill, there's many other ways, but as I stated earlier, the law is not as harsh around here and thus I don't really care.

If I get caught in a abandoned structure, what will the cops do? Fine me and send me home...so if that's all that will happen, what should I be scared of?

 

And I do NOT appriciate to be linked to a criminal organisation such as the Hells Angels...I don't sell drugs or murder people, so watch what you're saying

I am also well aware that most people here won't agree with me, and that's OK, I didn't write my earlier posts to have everyone on my side, but rather to show you the view of a cacher that has done a lot of these "illegal" caches.

I actually don't know how to explain it to you guys, because everyone who's not from europe might have a hard time understanding it, but as illegal as these caches are, there really is nothing to fear from the local authorities, and that leads to a perception of these caches as beeing officially forbidden to enter, but if you do it, still nothing will happen...

Edited December 23, 2011 by Otis.Gore

[veit]

Some random thoughts - not really in the flow of the current conversation, but I'm thinking of this constantly now, so thought I'd add what crossed my mind:

 

- a local cacher told me in a private email yesterday that he went back to the site of the accident to retrieve the actual cache a couple of nights ago (he knew it was still there because he had found the cache the night after Willi died - unknowingly of what had happened). Believe it or not, the cache was still in place a week after this happened. I don't know what or if this says anything about the attitude of police/city. I just found it unbelievable, especially after the picture of the actual logbook had been in the paper already. He posted this info publically as a note to the cache page now, so thought I'd share it for those who want updates (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=a9377594-fb5c-4218-98d0-8f5c49a85673)

- culture of safety: how do we expect Owners, especially less-experienced ones, to make the right choices, if this is the "Geocache of the Week": http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/06/the-rock-gc1ej43-the-geocache-of-the-week-june-13-2011/ - that one sentence on the blog page just made my blood chill a little bit: "Geocachers step up to the challenge by stepping on the overgrown deck of an abandoned and crumbling bridge." Discovered this by pure chance clicking a bit around the gc-FB-page. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the cache, I couldn't even find any info on who owns this bridge today (permission issue), don't know if it matters. The cache is hugely popular, featured by Groundspeak, and personally, I can absolutely understand why some owner would hardly give a second thought to placing a cache on a on first view much less dangerous bridge.

- I was just about to send Jeremy a direct message, so checked out his Facebook page. His second to last update from Tuesday made me cringe and stopped me dead in my tracks from writing him. "My condolences to Norway for their butter shortage". Read it to believe it. (https://www.facebook.com/jeremyirish/posts/10150454514652771) It's maybe just a bad coincidence (although I doubt he didnt hear of the accident before Tuesday). That it's still there, and not an official word from Groundspeak about the tragedy so far is unacceptable. He is the "President and CEO at Groundspeak" and supposedly the leader of our community. I wanted to appeal to him to act quickly from founder to founder, but I'm starting to get a really bad gut feeling about the guy (I was critical of Groundspeak before because some of the business practices, but this is a totally different level, you just don't post condolences about butter prices a few days after someone died pursuing the hobby you helped create).

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Still expecting someone else to hold your hand and keep you safe? Do what needs to be done and log NA on those caches that don't meet the guidelines and have been placed in illegal locations. If you HAD done that earlier, someone need not have died.

 

Dear John, I would really appreciate if you could edit your post. It's the first time I am truly offended in this entire thread. I didn't know this cache even existed, I had not been there, I came here to find a solution to prevent this in the future and have spent countless hours trying to get the best ideas out there. Suggesting I could have done anyhing to prevent Willi's death is outrageous. Your post ist tasteless, and quite frankly a disgrace to this usually very respectful thread.

 

If you had been logging NA on the caches that you did go find, that were illegally placed, then others might have followed your example and also started logging NA where appropriate.

 

Someone has to stand up and act like an adult and show others that certain caches should not be accepted as okay, if they have been placed where they are not allowed.

 

All it takes is someone to stand up show others the right way to do things, and that includes logging NA on caches that need to be removed.

 

You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, but it is up to you, how you choose to act. Groundspeak laid out the guidelines and if you cannot or will not follow them, then there is very little that Groundspeak can do. Of course the easiest way for Groudspeak to "fix" the problem would be to archive ALL caches in Germany and get a different reviewer who could be a lot stricter with placement of caches.

 

Hopefully this will cause you to do, what you know needs to be done. Show your outrage by logging NA on those caches that you know should not have been allowed to be placed. Show your caching community your outrage by doing what is right. Don't be a sheep and blame everyone else.

 

It is not always easy to do the right thing, but the end results are worth the effort.

 

John

[knowschad]

Pick one:

 

1) Eh, status quo works for me. Don't fix what ain't broke. It was them Germans, not us. Sucks for them, but WE don't need to change a thang.

 

or,

 

2) Maybe we should try as a community to increase safety awareness and improve on the process(s) that lead to Willi's death, stop laying blame, and start making a difference to change at risk behaviors across the board to save injuries and lives in the future.

 

Got a little editorship going on there? Why does the first one sound like Goofus saying it, and the other like Gallant?

 

[cezanne]

But Groundspeak doesn't have a culture of transparency as a company. I don't think Groundspeak gets to have it both ways - they can't keep everything behind the scenes and responses to an absolute minimum, and also demand that people not try to make assumptions and make sense of the situation and try to fill in some Groundspeak-created gaps in a case like this.

Did you check the German Reviewer Blog and the German section of the Groundspeak Wiki that the OP linked to? I didn't want to summarize them because I don't speak German. I'm generally familiar with the efforts of the German team and Groundspeak to address the issues discussed in the blog post. I know there are also active discussions in several German-speaking forums in which reviewers participate. Sounds transparent to me.

 

Do you happen to mean the posting about Lost place caches here

http://www.gc-reviewer.de/

Of course, I know this site, but as I have mentioned before a heating bridge is not a lost place/abandoned structure.

 

Moreover, what we discuss here is a more general issue, not the issue of a single country or region. I am quite sure that further similar serious accidents will happen and they will not be restricted to specific countries. Countries like the Czech republic and Austria with similarly active scenes as Germany might easily be effected as well. In the case of the Czech republic or Hungary it might just be that reports will about the incidents not reach these forums and Groundspeak.

 

BTW: Only a very small number of German reviewers is active in some part of this forum and none of the Austrian reviewers is active here.

 

 

Sorry for creating that perceived inconsistency. I came here in an effort to provide facts and increased transparency. To resolve the perceived inconsistency, I won't post further to this thread.

 

I think that your contribution is very much appreciated. It appears to me, however, that it has not been apparent to you that it must have been clear to the reviewer that the cache is off-limit. It is the same as in the case of the cache I referred to this thread. There will not exist a single Austrian cacher including all reviewers who really thinks that it is legal to climb up the metal tower in the shopping mall. It is all about not being caught while doing so or hoping that nothing will happen if one is caught. I'd welcome if this fact is acknowledged. This approach of leaving a grey area between white and black also has advantages as we all know, but we should not pretend that the only illegal caches that are listed on gc.com are either listed by mistake or due to insincerity on the side of the hiders. A lot of caches are known to be illegal, but are kept as long as they do not cause big issues for Groundspeak and as long the community enjoys them. (AT least this is true in those European countries where I am quite familiar with the geocaching scene - I cannot talk for North America.)

[Pup Patrol]

And I do NOT appriciate to be linked to a criminal organisation such as the Hells Angels...I don't sell drugs or murder people, so watch what you're saying

 

 

I know this is a long, involved thread, so I guess I missed where this bit of business came into it.

[cezanne]

First off, I never said that geocaching is only great if you break the law, and of course there are T5 caches that require even more balls than breaking the law.

But honestly, it adds to the thrill.(And I am sure everyone has expirienced that at least once in their life...the thrill of doing something forbidden)

Still, it's not like the sole purpose in my life is to break the law to get a thrill, there's many other ways, but as I stated earlier, the law is not as harsh around here and thus I don't really care.

If I get caught in a abandoned structure, what will the cops do? Fine me and send me home...so if that's all that will happen, what should I be scared of?

 

And I do NOT appriciate to be linked to a criminal organisation such as the Hells Angels...I don't sell drugs or murder people, so watch what you're saying

I am also well aware that most people here won't agree with me, and that's OK, I didn't write my earlier posts to have everyone on my side, but rather to show you the view of a cacher that has done a lot of these "illegal" caches.

I actually don't know how to explain it to you guys, because everyone who's not from europe might have a hard time understanding it, but as illegal as these caches are, there really is nothing to fear from the local authorities, and that leads to a perception of these caches as beeing officially forbidden to enter, but if you do it, still nothing will happen...

 

Thanks for posting this here. It provides a perfect example why it is hopeless in a country like Austria to try to fight against caches at locations that are not supposed to be visited. Your insulting formulation about having balls also is typical for the type of reaction cachers in this part of the world receive if they try to argue against a certain type of caches.

 

As I am Austrian myself I know all the background very well, and I can to some extent understand why some people like to engage themselves in forbidden activities (even though I never in my life was thrilled at doing some forbidden - if I happened to do such things, it normally was not on purpose and if not, I had a bad conscience). In any case I cannot understand that this sort of activity gets such a prominent space on a site like gc.com and that whenever some incidents happen (of whatever type) the official reaction always talk about that it has not been known that the effected caches had issues which is simply not true. Look through the galleries of some reviewers - they can't be paranoic or completely ignorant of the local law. The real issue is just the one you mentioned before: As long no official ban of geocaching in certain areas or very high fines for being caught are in view, not much will happen.

 

The real issue is not about Groundspeak and its volunteers, it is about the attitude of a considerable part of the geocaching community in some countries.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited December 23, 2011 by cezanne

[+Otis.Gore]

Do you really believe that caching can only be special when it requires breaking the law? Do you likewise really believe that, to be a "Manly Man" cacher means you have to commit crimes? I ask because I know other people who believe exactly as you do. They measure their manliness by how many crimes they commit, and consider any evening spent without breaking the law to be monotonous. I'm just not sure that embracing such views is good for this game.

 

Right here, and I think that comparison is a bit much.

I know I may not be the prototype of a law abiding citizen, but I am surely no career criminal.

Let's leave it with that and get back to the thread.

[+Snoogans]

Pick one:

 

1) Eh, status quo works for me. Don't fix what ain't broke. It was them Germans, not us. Sucks for them, but WE don't need to change a thang.

 

or,

 

2) Maybe we should try as a community to increase safety awareness and improve on the process(s) that lead to Willi's death, stop laying blame, and start making a difference to change at risk behaviors across the board to save injuries and lives in the future.

 

Got a little editorship going on there? Why does the first one sound like Goofus saying it, and the other like Gallant?

 

 

I don't care who ya are. That there's funny.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Snoogans

[+Otis.Gore]

Why exactly do you assume that your definiton if right is the same as mine?

I will not interfere with anotherones cache.

I will not move it, I will not clean it, I will not post an NA.

I go there, find, sign and leave and that's it for me.

[knowschad]

 

 

I don't care who ya are. That there's funny.

 

Glad you took it that way. I figured this thread needed a little light-heartedness thrown in.

[veit]

I decided to not read too much into Jeremy's unfortunate and insensitive Facebook/Twitter post, and went ahead and sent him a personal message (through your FB and gc-Profiles, in case you missed it, Jeremy). I hope he will take this issue up personally, I've seen another similar situation play out in a different community this year where the founders first stuck their heads into the sand and then came out blazing with a ton of new safety features, awareness campaigns. I hope Groundspeak does the same.

 

As to those insisting again and again that only those who start posting NA logs right now be allowed to discuss here further, please stop. I'm also not telling you in every post that you should post red warnings on any cache that you might have done that might have some sort of danger for other cachers right now. We are here to collect ideas, so please try to do your part to come up with new ones, or leave it at that if that's all you can come up with.

[+GeoBain]

Heck, one of the riskiest caches I know of is perfectly legal. If you find yourself on my side of the pond, you should give it a shot. Please add my name to the logbook if you do.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that the legality of this cache allows the CO the freedom to put all kinds of warnings on the listing.

 

Disclaimer

 

DISCLAIMER: Like many Terrain 5 caches, this can be a dangerous or even deadly cache for the untrained or unprepared! DO NOT TACKLE THIS CACHE ALONE! This cache is only for trained and experienced seekers using appropriate technical equipment; a team effort of two or more experienced seekers, with suitable technical gear, is best. No one is forcing you to read this cache description nor to seek this cache. If you choose to seek this cache, you do so only of your own free will and fully and totally on your own responsibility. If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, harm, injury or death which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city and state governments) are NOT responsible for any injury, inconvenience or death which may befall you or your team members.

 

Rather than telling potential finders to avoid muggles, potential finders are encouraged, even warned, to work in groups.

 

It looks very different than the listing we've been discussing.

[Clan Riffster]

You really should put the same amount of passion and energy into changing the hearts and minds of your local geocachers. And if you are really seeing reviewers ignoring NA logs when someone does bother to post them, then you should use that same passion and energy to get Groundspeak to replace those reviewers.

 

That.

 

Veit, I will say again that I admire your passion and your courage. The steps you have taken so far took guts. As a local who is also fluent in English, has been caching long enough to have credibility in your community, and who believes strongly is promoting safety, I think you would be the perfect person to lead the charge against illegal caches. Your end result may be no more than Don Quixote charging at windmills, or, it could lead to an overall change in community awareness. We won't know until somebody tries. I hope you do, as I honestly believe that such a campaign will save lives in the long run.

 

Please quit assigning blame.

 

If the shoe fits...

 

We don't need a global fix.... Fix implying the system is broken....

 

No. It's broken. True, this is not a global issue, but since this is a global hobby, (we are all geocachers, after all), having a huge geographic region where such issues are apparently both common and prominent, with no corrective action from TPTB, tells us that, absolutely, the system is broken. Severely.

 

The cache in question was hidden in an area where Joe Public is not allowed to go, the quintessential definition of an illegal cache. The Reviewer published it anyway, possibly because he did not know the location required committing a criminal act to access. The 36 people who found it afterward all had the opportunity to submit N/A logs, pointing out that the cache was illegal. None of them chose to do so. The locals are telling us this is because they fear the reaction from the community such a log would generate. The locals are also telling us that if one of those 36 trespassers had posted an N/A, the log would most likely have been deleted by the cache owner, and ignored by the Reviewer.

 

I don't know how accurate that assessment is, as I am not a local, but given the examples posted by the folks who live there, and deal with this type of situation on a regular basis, I would guess it is quite likely true.

 

If it is true, then the system over there is broken.

If the system over there is broken, and Groundspeak is unwilling to participate in helping to correct it, then by default, the whole is broken as well.

 

In defining the system, we see the following:

 

1 ) The Guidelines.

1a ) These are being ignored by both the hiders and the seekers.

1b ) Having a large percentage of a population ignoring the mores of the group they belong to is indicative of a broken system.

 

2 ) The Hiders.

2a ) On at least 2000 occasions, (according to locals), the hider placed a cache in a location where Joe Public was not allowed. The hider felt perfectly comfortable doing so.

2b ) Apathy for societal laws is indicative of a broken system.

 

3 ) The Reviewers.

3a ) According to the locals, there have been occasions where the Reviewers were notified by N/A logs that specific caches were illegal. The locals tell us that the Reviewers ignored those logs. According to the locals, you can tell just from looking at the cache pages that many caches are hidden in illegal areas. The Reviewers, being experienced geocachers, presumably have the same ability to see that many caches are placed in illegal locations, yet the caches, which are in clear violation of the guidelines the Reviewer agreed to uphold, are being published anyway.

3b ) Wide scale job apathy is indicative of a broken system.

 

4 ) The Seekers.

4a ) On this particular cache, 36 seekers went into an area where they were not allowed to go. The locals tell us that it is quite clear that they are not permitted to go there, even though there are no signs specifically prohibiting access. Each of these 36 seekers had the opportunity to post an N/A log, yet none of them did so, out of either fear of reprisal or apathy to the problem.

4b ) Peer pressure that encourages the continuance of a problem is indicative of a broken system.

 

Do you really believe it's just the local community at fault?

So... Are we now saying the system is broken at a global level?

If so, I agree. It is.

 

...but you actually seem to be saying that misleading the reviewers is a successful strategy for getting a questionable cache published.

 

He said that because it is, quite literally, true. Think "Aunt Edna". I live in Central Florida. My Reviewers know this. Now assume I take a vacation in Alaska, and hide a cache there. Such a cache would be a clear violation of the guidelines, and would not be published. But, if I add a Reviewer note to my cache submission with words to the effect of, "My Aunt Edna lives directly across the street and has agreed to handle any maintenance issues that come up", my cache would quite likely get published, even though I don't really have an Aunt Edna.

 

This is but one example. There are many more throughout the history of this hobby. Being a cache hider does not suddenly make a person entirely honest.

 

I say it means the reviewing process is flawed and easily circumvented.

 

I don't know if the reviewing process is flawed or not, but I would lean toward "not". The Reviewers can only review with the data available to them. Tools such as Google Earth and other mapping programs help tremendously in showing a Reviewer where a cache is located, though the inaccuracies of both the GPSr used to obtain the given coordinates, and the inaccuracies of the maps make the hide location more of a general idea, rather than an exact science, from the Reviewer perspective.

 

But I agree, the reviewing process can be circumvented.

I can't imagine any process that is fib proof, and I would be unwilling to hold Groundspeak, or its volunteer Reviewers, to such an unreasonable standard as ensuring that the data they receive is truthful.

 

Suggesting I could have done anyhing to prevent Willi's death is outrageous.

 

Perhaps it was just worded poorly? I say that because I kind of agree with his point. Let us assume, for arguments sake, that from your very first cache find in 2006, you approached the hobby with the notion that illegal caches have no place in this game. You mentioned earlier that you have found, and enjoyed, illegal caches in the past. You also mentioned earlier that you know of "thousands" of such caches. Had you taken a stand against such hides, from the beginning of your career, you might have been ridiculed by some. That's true. But had you stuck to your beliefs, and continued your hypothetical campaign against illegal caches, your viewpoint would quite likely have gained a respectable following in the community.

 

I know that you personally could not have had any direct impact on this particular cache, because you were unaware of it. But had you raised community awareness 5 years ago, perhaps one of those 36 finders would have been a follower of your campaign, and as such, more willing to take a stand, posting an N/A.

 

If I get caught in a abandoned structure, what will the cops do? Fine me and send me home...so if that's all that will happen, what should I be scared of?

 

As long as you have an unlimited source of income, then your attitude is perfectly acceptable, though I personally cringe when I see people who truly do not care that the society they belong to has marked certain activities as forbidden. You know what you were doing was technically illegal, and you were willing to accept the consequences of your actions. But for your fellow countrymen who do not have limitless incomes, the thought of paying a fine could be something to fear. On this side of the pond, there are many laws regarding operating motor vehicles. If I break these laws, and I am caught, I face the chance of being fined. I am not a wealthy person, so such a fine would have a dramatic impact on my life, as I would have to decide which bills I do not pay in order to pay the fine. Food? Electricity? Water? Mortgage? Health care? Which one should I do without? It's a tough call for me. As such, I personally do fear being fined, and I will not willingly participate in such behaviors that could result in such fines.

 

I think it's great that you are wealthy enough not to fear being fined.

 

Please don't assume that others share your wealthy status.

 

For many, fines are something to fear.

 

And I do NOT appriciate to be linked to a criminal organisation such as the Hells Angels...I don't sell drugs or murder people, so watch what you're saying

I know this is a long, involved thread, so I guess I missed where this bit of business came into it.

Otis was explaining that breaking the law while caching added to his level of enjoyment. I compared his attitude with another group I know of that feels that breaking the law adds to the "thrill" of whatever activity they are engaged in, embracing the outlaw mentality.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[+A & J Tooling]

They'll never post a safety message like so many here want because then that will become a admission of guilt. Ever hear of Sawstop? The tablesaw that will freeze the sawblade by slamming a aluminum brake into the blade and stop it from cutting flesh? It actually works but do you see them inside of any woodworking businesses? Not any big ones because then you're admitting that the danger is there and you just opened yourself up to all kinds of lawsuits.

 

As a Small business owner, I'd never have a safety warning like you guys ask on my site.

[+briansnat]

I will never forget the feeling of the old days, when beeing a cacher was something special and required balls.

Otis, thank you for coming to this thread. While I disagree with almost everything you wrote, (It's OK to disagree), I do admire the fact that you were willing to come into this thread and express your views on the matter. Since I suspect that others will address your bragging about committing criminal acts just to get a smiley, I'll pass on that aspect of your post and focus on this statement.

 

Do you really believe that caching can only be special when it requires breaking the law? Do you likewise really believe that, to be a "Manly Man" cacher means you have to commit crimes? They measure their manliness by how many crimes they commit, and consider any evening spent without breaking the law to be monotonous. I'm just not sure that embracing such views is good for this game.

 

What I am saying is that these caches are way more fun BECAUSE of the risk, and if you don't want to waste your life for a piece of paper, maybe it's not a good idea to do it, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't do it.

Other than the rare few who want the whole world covered in bubble wrap, I don't think you'll find anyone who has a problem with risky hides. There are many outdoors hobbies that carry inherent risks. Skydiving, rock climbing, etc. Where the problem lies, in my opinion, is with the thug life mentality that believes one must actually commit crimes to feed their need for risking themselves. Being a risk junky is a noble and honorable profession. Heck, one of the riskiest caches I know of is perfectly legal. If you find yourself on my side of the pond, you should give it a shot. Please add my name to the logbook if you do.

 

First off, I never said that geocaching is only great if you break the law, and of course there are T5 caches that require even more balls than breaking the law.

But honestly, it adds to the thrill.(And I am sure everyone has expirienced that at least once in their life...the thrill of doing something forbidden)

Still, it's not like the sole purpose in my life is to break the law to get a thrill, there's many other ways, but as I stated earlier, the law is not as harsh around here and thus I don't really care.

If I get caught in a abandoned structure, what will the cops do? Fine me and send me home...so if that's all that will happen, what should I be scared of?

 

And I do NOT appriciate to be linked to a criminal organisation such as the Hells Angels...I don't sell drugs or murder people, so watch what you're saying

I am also well aware that most people here won't agree with me, and that's OK, I didn't write my earlier posts to have everyone on my side, but rather to show you the view of a cacher that has done a lot of these "illegal" caches.

I actually don't know how to explain it to you guys, because everyone who's not from europe might have a hard time understanding it, but as illegal as these caches are, there really is nothing to fear from the local authorities, and that leads to a perception of these caches as beeing officially forbidden to enter, but if you do it, still nothing will happen...

 

Kind of odd having a discussion with yourself, no?

[+GeoBain]

They'll never post a safety message like so many here want because then that will become a admission of guilt. Ever hear of Sawstop? The tablesaw that will freeze the sawblade by slamming a aluminum brake into the blade and stop it from cutting flesh? It actually works but do you see them inside of any woodworking businesses? Not any big ones because then you're admitting that the danger is there and you just opened yourself up to all kinds of lawsuits.

 

I'm guessing it has more to do with Sawstop costing 3 times as much as a regular table saw.

[+cx1]

 

Kind of odd having a discussion with yourself, no?

I believe it more that he is not an expert on the quote system used on the site. If you imagine the quote box ending after the 1st smiley it seems clear that he is not talking with himself.

[Sandy]

My previous post in this thread was to send our condolences to the family and friends of this cacher. At 21 he already contributed much to the game. We are deeply saddened at Groundspeak.

 

Since this incident, Groundspeak has received some requests to archive caches that are deemed by the community member as dangerous. We do not want to archive listings based solely on a complaint of this nature. However, if a cache is reported to us and that cache meets the placement guidelines, we will contact the Cache Owner to let them know there has been a complaint. They may opt to update the cache page with some cautionary text.

 

When a cache is reported that does not meet the guidelines, we will take action. As the location is not checked before the listing is published, we rely on the community to speak up when a cache is placed inappropriately. That said, it is important to discern between an inappropriate placement and one that is particularly difficult and could put a cacher in a dangerous situation. A caches rated 5/5 may require a cacher to abseil off a cliff, which many would consider to be dangerous, but we will not be restricting cachers from placing caches of this nature if they meet current guidelines. If you know of a cache that is inappropriately placed, and you do not want to post a Needs Archived log on the cache page, you can email Groundspeak so that we can look into the matter.

 

Again, our deepest sympathies for the loss of this cacher.

 

 

 

[+briansnat]

 

Kind of odd having a discussion with yourself, no?

I believe it more that he is not an expert on the quote system used on the site. If you imagine the quote box ending after the 1st smiley it seems clear that he is not talking with himself.

 

Sounds more like Ringbone to me.

[+Otis.Gore]

@briansnat

 

I am not having a discussion with myself, if you'd have read the earlier posts you'd know.

I simply F'd up quoting...

I actually quoted Clan Riffster there, I guess you know him...so no Ringbone

 

@Clan Riffster

 

Well, I don't know how high the fines are over there, but here it's not much, and often enough, there won't be a fine at all, they simply tell you you can't be there and send you away.

Except from that, if you don't want or can't pay fines, how about just not doing these caches where you might get fined.

And I can imagine that in the US, if you're found trespassing by the police, a fine might be your smallest problem (though I don't honestly know if they will arrest you, I know that over here they rarely do)

As I understand, you handle it the same way when driving...

Edited December 23, 2011 by Otis.Gore

[cezanne]

If I get caught in a abandoned structure, what will the cops do? Fine me and send me home...so if that's all that will happen, what should I be scared of?

 

As long as you have an unlimited source of income, then your attitude is perfectly acceptable, though I personally cringe when I see people who truly do not care that the society they belong to has marked certain activities as forbidden. You know what you were doing was technically illegal, and you were willing to accept the consequences of your actions. But for your fellow countrymen who do not have limitless incomes, the thought of paying a fine could be something to fear. On this side of the pond, there are many laws regarding operating motor vehicles. If I break these laws, and I am caught, I face the chance of being fined. I am not a wealthy person, so such a fine would have a dramatic impact on my life, as I would have to decide which bills I do not pay in order to pay the fine. Food? Electricity? Water? Mortgage? Health care? Which one should I do without? It's a tough call for me. As such, I personally do fear being fined, and I will not willingly participate in such behaviors that could result in such fines.

 

I think it's great that you are wealthy enough not to fear being fined.

 

Please don't assume that others share your wealthy status.

 

For many, fines are something to fear.

 

I think that what he and many other rely on is that the risk to be caught is often not too high and if one is caught sometimes just a warning is issued and if a fine has to be paid, there are many cases where it is not that high at least not with respect to the income of the people. I know a lot of people who do not mind that much to get a ticket for speeding or wrong parking from time and time and take the risk into account. I think that due to the fact that many European countries have social security systems that provide a lot of protection for the people, the situation cannot be compared with the situation in the US where even health care can be kind of a luxury item and each student at university has to pay a lot of money.

 

Cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

My previous post in this thread was to send our condolences to the family and friends of this cacher. At 21 he already contributed much to the game. We are deeply saddened at Groundspeak.

 

Since this incident, Groundspeak has received some requests to archive caches that are deemed by the community member as dangerous. We do not want to archive listings based solely on a complaint of this nature. However, if a cache is reported to us and that cache meets the placement guidelines, we will contact the Cache Owner to let them know there has been a complaint. They may opt to update the cache page with some cautionary text.

 

When a cache is reported that does not meet the guidelines, we will take action. As the location is not checked before the listing is published, we rely on the community to speak up when a cache is placed inappropriately. That said, it is important to discern between an inappropriate placement and one that is particularly difficult and could put a cacher in a dangerous situation. A caches rated 5/5 may require a cacher to abseil off a cliff, which many would consider to be dangerous, but we will not be restricting cachers from placing caches of this nature if they meet current guidelines. If you know of a cache that is inappropriately placed, and you do not want to post a Needs Archived log on the cache page, you can email Groundspeak so that we can look into the matter.

 

Again, our deepest sympathies for the loss of this cacher.

 

Hi Sandy,

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

 

does not meet the guidelines for Permission, or Adequate Permission but NA logs have been deleted and gone unanswered. You can type plenty of nice things about the cacher and how sorry you are, but actions are most important and lacking here.

Edited December 23, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+GeoBain]

 

Kind of odd having a discussion with yourself, no?

I believe it more that he is not an expert on the quote system used on the site. If you imagine the quote box ending after the 1st smiley it seems clear that he is not talking with himself.

 

Sounds more like Ringbone to me.

 

He was responding to Clan Riffster. I pretty sure Otis is not CR.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

When a cache is reported that does not meet the guidelines, we will take action. As the location is not checked before the listing is published, we rely on the community to speak up when a cache is placed inappropriately. That said, it is important to discern between an inappropriate placement and one that is particularly difficult and could put a cacher in a dangerous situation. A caches rated 5/5 may require a cacher to abseil off a cliff, which many would consider to be dangerous, but we will not be restricting cachers from placing caches of this nature if they meet current guidelines. If you know of a cache that is inappropriately placed, and you do not want to post a Needs Archived log on the cache page, you can email Groundspeak so that we can look into the matter.

 

Again, our deepest sympathies for the loss of this cacher.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c3031539-01f9-42c1-b12e-56b23b4776c7

 

is hidden among live wires inside a rusty lamppost. I emailed Groundspeak about it and there was no response. Permission was not obtained, and adequate permission does not exist at all.

[+addisonbr]

 

Kind of odd having a discussion with yourself, no?

I believe it more that he is not an expert on the quote system used on the site. If you imagine the quote box ending after the 1st smiley it seems clear that he is not talking with himself.

 

Sounds more like Ringbone to me.

This might deserve a quick read before concluding Ringbone:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4927864

[+B+L]

If the reviewers do not have access to tools which will allow them to make an independent determination about the validity of a proposed cache location, they need to be given them.

That would fundamentally re-define my job. The only way I'd be comfortable becoming the owner's guarantor and making this independent determination would be to visit each cache location and talk with the land owner. I could review a few caches per week rather than a few per hour. I'd quit and spend more time volunteering for my church's safety and security team.

Validating the location is not the same thing as becoming the owner's guarantor. You've ignored the question about whether it is policy to take the owner's word as the sole determination. I have reason to believe that it is. because I was once told as much by a GS employee.

 

You are a volunteer in a difficult job. Unfortunately there will be times that you or you cohorts are open to criticism and that comes with the territory. Please take it as it is intended, as criticism of the system and not you personally.

 

I have previously let Grounspeak know my concerns about the situation volunteers like you are are in. Switching back and forth between being a reviewer, a moderator and a private person complicates your role unnecessarily and will at times make it extraordinarily difficult for you to remain above the fray. I think we are seeing some of that here.

 

[ZeMartelo]

 

Disclaimer

 

DISCLAIMER: Like many Terrain 5 caches, this can be a dangerous or even deadly cache for the untrained or unprepared! DO NOT TACKLE THIS CACHE ALONE! This cache is only for trained and experienced seekers using appropriate technical equipment; a team effort of two or more experienced seekers, with suitable technical gear, is best. No one is forcing you to read this cache description nor to seek this cache. If you choose to seek this cache, you do so only of your own free will and fully and totally on your own responsibility. If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, harm, injury or death which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city and state governments) are NOT responsible for any injury, inconvenience or death which may befall you or your team members.

 

Rather than telling potential finders to avoid muggles, potential finders are encouraged, even warned, to work in groups.

 

It looks very different than the listing we've been discussing.

 

Quite a disclaimer.... But Im wondering and thats why Im asking the question. Would that disclaimer hold any ground in court?

[veit]

Just a quick heads up that Sandy also replied to me personally as well (to the email I had sent to contact@geocaching.com as suggested in this thread). I am glad communication is starting, and I'm happy to hear that they are in touch with Willi's family. However, this can only be the beginning.

 

So far Sandy only addressed one of the concerns we had raised in this thread: the inability/unwillingness of local reviewers to archive "illegally placed" caches, and invited us to go straight over their heads and contact Groundspeak directly, where they will be archived. I don't know much about the dynamics of Groundspeak as a company and their volunteer reviewers, if they will appreciate this or not, but I think it is good that we can go straight to them with this now. It will avoid all the bad dynamics around people who post NA and fellow local cachers, and effectively is very similar to the anonymous report button suggested in the thread. At least two caches were pointed out here - I just checked and they were still online. From now on Groundspeak's efficiency will be judged how quickly they act on such notices.

 

It's also clear that this is the end of "illegally placed" caches. Because basically just one cacher has to complain about one, and that's it. I can imagine that hardly anyone will keep placing them if they are doomed to disappear quickly.

 

Personally, I will report a few caches I know. I strongly suggest Groundspeak accompany this with a good communications strategy, maybe a partnership with urban exploration groups, or advice to cachers that they CAN place their caches next to that exciting location if they want to show it, but not inside.

 

I'm glad we're moving forward, Sandy, please also address the other suggestions made in this thread.

[+GeoBain]

 

Disclaimer

 

DISCLAIMER: Like many Terrain 5 caches, this can be a dangerous or even deadly cache for the untrained or unprepared! DO NOT TACKLE THIS CACHE ALONE! This cache is only for trained and experienced seekers using appropriate technical equipment; a team effort of two or more experienced seekers, with suitable technical gear, is best. No one is forcing you to read this cache description nor to seek this cache. If you choose to seek this cache, you do so only of your own free will and fully and totally on your own responsibility. If you decide to tackle this cache, you take full responsibility for any and all damages, harm, injury or death which may befall you or your companions. If you decide to tackle this cache, you understand that the cache owners, the cache listing websites, and any and all other organizations (including city and state governments) are NOT responsible for any injury, inconvenience or death which may befall you or your team members.

 

Rather than telling potential finders to avoid muggles, potential finders are encouraged, even warned, to work in groups.

 

It looks very different than the listing we've been discussing.

 

Quite a disclaimer.... But Im wondering and thats why Im asking the question. Would that disclaimer hold any ground in court?

 

You would need to ask a lawyer. BTW, there's much more information than that on the listing if you follow the link I provided.

[+GeoBain]

So far Sandy only addressed one of the concerns we had raised in this thread: the inability/unwillingness of local reviewers to archive "illegally placed" caches, and invited us to go straight over their heads and contact Groundspeak directly, where they will be archived. I don't know much about the dynamics of Groundspeak as a company and their volunteer reviewers, if they will appreciate this or not, but I think it is good that we can go straight to them with this now. It will avoid all the bad dynamics around people who post NA and fellow local cachers, and effectively is very similar to the anonymous report button suggested in the thread. At least two caches were pointed out here - I just checked and they were still online. From now on Groundspeak's efficiency will be judged how quickly they act on such notices.

 

Just to be clear, we have ALWAYS been able to contact reviewers anonymously via email. We have also ALWAYS been able to email Groundspeak directly at contact@geocaching.com if we don't feel a reviewer is dealing with the situation properly. A search of these forums will confirm what I just said.

 

It's also clear that this is the end of "illegally placed" caches. Because basically just one cacher has to complain about one, and that's it. I can imagine that hardly anyone will keep placing them if they are doomed to disappear quickly.

 

Don't count on it.

 

It still takes someone such as yourself to initiate the process. You just stated that you will report the few cache you know about. But someone will need to report the others before action is taken. I don't see Groundspeak implemented the carpet bombing database query you suggested earlier. Action will be likely taken on a cache by cache basis as reports are logged.

[ZeMartelo]

 

You would need to ask a lawyer. BTW, there's much more information than that on the listing if you follow the link I provided.

 

I took a look at that cache. Im also wondering. Is that cache in a legal spot? I know its an abandoned bridge pillar but is it not private property? Was there permission to place a cache on what can be considered a dangerous environment?

Just wondering in light of the discussion in this thread.

[+GeoBain]

 

You would need to ask a lawyer. BTW, there's much more information than that on the listing if you follow the link I provided.

 

I took a look at that cache. Im also wondering. Is that cache in a legal spot? I know its an abandoned bridge pillar but is it not private property? Was there permission to place a cache on what can be considered a dangerous environment?

Just wondering in light of the discussion in this thread.

 

Based on Vinny and Sue's prior history, I would say yes. Shoot the reviewer an email and ask.

[veit]

It's also clear that this is the end of "illegally placed" caches. Because basically just one cacher has to complain about one, and that's it. I can imagine that hardly anyone will keep placing them if they are doomed to disappear quickly.

 

Don't count on it.

 

It still takes someone such as yourself to initiate the process. You just stated that you will report the few cache you know about. But someone will need to report the others before action is taken. I don't see Groundspeak implemented the carpet bombing database query you suggested earlier. Action will be likely taken on a cache by cache basis as reports are logged.

 

Yes, but that's fine I think. It now only takes a handful of people, or even just one determined individual that thinks that all such caches should be gone - anyone can search for these kinds of caches on the site. And - to me more importantly - it also gives clear responsability to everyone of us as a finder to take action - if need by anonymously - when we get to a cache that is clearly off-limits and possibly dangerous. Noone can hide behind the local peer-pressure-argument anymore. Of course, as long as this is communicated in a good way by Groundspeak - so far basically only those of us who have read Sandy's statement here are aware of it. That has to happen. Please include this in your next newsletter!

 

But I think if this kind of policy had been in place, one of the 34 finders before Willi, or maybe even just one looking at the listing, while not daring to post a NA publically, might have simply dropped a line to Groundspeak. It quite decisively lowers that barrier. Now I just hope I didn't completely misunderstand Sandy and they take the easy route and simple forward such complaints to the local reviewer...

[veit]

BTW, here's a suggestion: could someone open a thread simply for pointing out caches that probably are "illegally placed"? That way those who think this is the best solution have a place to collect and evaluate them and track Groundspeak's progress in archiving them. I'm pretty sure it can be fun tracking them down, give the thread a catchy title and I'm sure you'll have an evergreen Forum thread in no time ;-) I don't wanna be the OP for that one, since I wanna continue to live a happy life here in Germany ;-) And in this thread we can continue to discuss the other ideas that have been been proposed. We are through with the issue of "illegal caches" - whether we agree or not, Groundspeak has made it clear that the archive hammer is dropping if just one cacher reports a cache he deems dangerous that is illegally placed.

[+Snoogans]

BTW, here's a suggestion: could someone open a thread simply for pointing out caches that probably are "illegally placed"? That way those who think this is the best solution have a place to collect and evaluate them and track Groundspeak's progress in archiving them. I'm pretty sure it can be fun tracking them down, give the thread a catchy title and I'm sure you'll have an evergreen Forum thread in no time ;-) I don't wanna be the OP for that one, since I wanna continue to live a happy life here in Germany ;-) And in this thread we can continue to discuss the other ideas that have been been proposed. We are through with the issue of "illegal caches" - whether we agree or not, Groundspeak has made it clear that the archive hammer is dropping if just one cacher reports a cache he deems dangerous that is illegally placed.

Ummm, it's just my opinion, but that's not a very good idea at this point if ever. It's an issue that needs to be done outside an open forum.

 

I would rather bring rogue hiders around to posting caches within the guidelines quietly rather than causing bad blood and stigmatizing someone that could have easily just been educated to do it the right way.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Snoogans

[veit]

BTW, here's a suggestion: could someone open a thread simply for pointing out caches that probably are "illegally placed"? That way those who think this is the best solution have a place to collect and evaluate them and track Groundspeak's progress in archiving them. I'm pretty sure it can be fun tracking them down, give the thread a catchy title and I'm sure you'll have an evergreen Forum thread in no time ;-) I don't wanna be the OP for that one, since I wanna continue to live a happy life here in Germany ;-) And in this thread we can continue to discuss the other ideas that have been been proposed. We are through with the issue of "illegal caches" - whether we agree or not, Groundspeak has made it clear that the archive hammer is dropping if just one cacher reports a cache he deems dangerous that is illegally placed.

Ummm, it's just my opinion, but that's not a very good idea at this point if ever. It's an issue that needs to be done outside an open forum.

 

I would rather bring rogue hiders around to posting caches within the guidelines quietly rather than causing bad blood and stigmatizing someone that could have easily just been educated to do it the right way.

 

True. I apologize. I just thought we were through with this issue in this thread and wanted to "externalize" the demonstration of single caches. But you are right - basically, there's not much to discuss, if you see a cache that most likely is illegally placed (and might be dangerous), just report it to Groundspeak if you feel that's the right thing to do. Not much more to say, really. Sorry about it, I was just sitting here myself thinking how to tackle that issue locally, whether I should send those owners (which I know/have had contact with) emails right now and discuss the issue with them...or avoid direct confrontation and just use the path Groundspeak has opened up. I agree that pointing out and potentially vilifying someone in an open Forum for doing something that has long been a very much accepted highly praised local practice was a stupid idea of me.

Edited December 23, 2011 by veit

[+B+L]

So far Sandy only addressed one of the concerns we had raised in this thread: the inability/unwillingness of local reviewers to archive "illegally placed" caches, and invited us to go straight over their heads and contact Groundspeak directly, where they will be archived.

Don't be so sure about that.

 

The cache owner states that it is not on private property, and we are taking his word on this.

Please understand that you have been heard, and that we are looking into this. What we hope for is an outcome that will take into consideration all the information which we have, some of which I am not at liberty to disclose to you.

These are snippets from a conversation with Groundspeak about a cache that they refused to archive. To put it bluntly, the cache owner was a liar. Notice how they played the we-have-some-info-that-we-can't-disclose card. A ludicrous statement in the context of the cache in question.

 

The cache was eventually archived a year or so later, for the same reasons I had given them in the first place.. The next time I tried to have a cache archived, the NA log was ignored. Three months later, I contacted GS about the cache and they declined to archive it. On the one year anniversary of posting the first NA log, I posted a second one. This time the cache got archived through the normal process. So, you'll forgive me if I am a little cynical about the process, although I do hope you reach a better outcome.

[veit]

So far Sandy only addressed one of the concerns we had raised in this thread: the inability/unwillingness of local reviewers to archive "illegally placed" caches, and invited us to go straight over their heads and contact Groundspeak directly, where they will be archived.

Don't be so sure about that.

 

Hm...you might be right, but that would be the absolute summit of cynicism by Groundspeak, since he posted in this thread and was aware of the discussion that went on about this. And it can easily be cleared up. I just read/reread her statement again.

 

When a cache is reported that does not meet the guidelines, we will take action.

 

1. What action? I assume a different action than the one for caches that do meet the guidelines, but are "just" deemed dangerous that you described in your first paragraph (contact owner, ask to amend listing). I assumed immediate archiving, but now I'm not so sure anymore.

2. That means if any cacher reports a cache and with some sort of evidence/credibility disputes the fact that it's placed with the landowner's permission, it will be immediately archived, right?

 

Ok, you know what, this is messing with my brain. Sandy/Groundspeak - give us a clear answer please. Do you want the community to start reporting "illegally placed" caches right now and start archiving them right now, or not?

[veit]

The crazy realization that the post by Sandy might have been nothing but communication (I'm not sure, I hope not, but I'm tired of getting deeper and deeper into Groundspeak-speak or -politics than I already have) just drove me to make a cut.

 

It's been great fun discussing with you all here, I am very glad we've come this far. This thread has taken a ton of my time in the last days and I can't invest that much anymore - after all it's Christmas ;-) I feel that together we have put a great deal of energy and thoughts into collecting ideas for the community and for Groundspeak what can be done, and it's now time for action. I hope more, and even better ideas will pop up in this thread from time to time - or even better, that Snoogans is successful creating the Safety category in the Forum and that the discussion will be taken to new levels there.

 

Don't take me wrong - I don't want this thread to die or be closed, and I will check in from time to time and am pretty sure others will help keep it alive....just personally it's time to step aside for a while. I am still convinced that change is due and needed on the site and in the community, but now the ball is clearly in Groundspeak's court. I feel we've exhausted the communication channels available to us (Forum, email contact, Founder).

 

I can now spend my time more efficiently by laying low for a week or two and by giving Groundspeak a bit of time to get their act together, rather than examining every little word that might come from an employee or a volunteer. If nothing happens after that I will use different communication channels and get national media in Groundspeak's main markets (surely Germany+US, maybe a few others) involved. It won't be hard, just a few emails to the right editors. Sticking the head into the sand or just continuing business as usual is not an option in this case. Willi died while geocaching and while we may never know how much of it was pure chance and how much could have been prevented, it simply sucks that he can't celebrate this Christmas with his family.

 

Enjoy Christmas with the people you love! Warm greetings from Germany,

 

Veit

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I can now spend my time more efficiently by laying low for a week or two and by giving Groundspeak a bit of time to get their act together, rather than examining every little word that might come from an employee or a volunteer. If nothing happens after that I will use different communication channels and get national media in Groundspeak's main markets (surely Germany+US, maybe a few others) involved. It won't be hard, just a few emails to the right editors. Sticking the head into the sand or just continuing business as usual is not an option in this case.

Veit

 

You will not log a cache with NA, but you will threaten Groundspeak if they don't do what you want?

 

Be careful what you send to the editors since they will be directed to this thread and your threat. Do you really want them to see how you have refused to take responsibility and post NA logs?

 

John