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

2.6k · January 13, 2012

They were not private emails...

Veit, do me a favor and double check the e-mail you received. Specifically, check to see if it had something to the effect of, "Everybody on the planet" in the CC field. If not, it was a private communication. Taking a private communication and making it public is a bad idea.

@Snoogans: I'm choosing this Forum/route because I'd like to see the most global and effective solutions applied.

I might have swallowed that line much earlier in this thread, but now? Not so much. Snoogans, along with a host of others, has already told you how to achieve the most global and effective solution. A forum which is read by much, much less than 1% of the geocaching community ain't it. About all you can accomplish here is to bounce ideas off one another, and that's been done. The next obvious step is to put those ideas into practice. Be the change you want to see. Slamming Groundspeak and threatening their livelihood accomplishes nothing, other than stripping you of any perceived credibility. Your call.

...other than probably all of us simply pretending we don't see it.

Veit, other than threatening Groundspeak, and making irrational demands, what, exactly, have you done about all those illegal caches in Germany? It's been a while, so my memory may be fuzzy, but didn't you say you knew of thousands of them? (Thousands being the plural form of thousand) Is it safe to assume you've submitted "thousands" of Needs Archived logs in the recent past? If not, how are you not part of the problem? Groundspeak has a pretty darn good track record at acting on NA logs regarding permission. But they do not have psychics on their payroll. The only way they have of learning about such illegal caches are the locals, such as yourself.

Again, what have you done?

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

- Matthew 7:3

I agree with all.

On previous posts from veit, although the subject was not nearly as traumatic, he has a tendency to NEVER let the discussion die. He'll poke and prod and twist, sometimes laying low for a while,then its back to stirring up the pot again almost as his main goal is angst and dissension. Sorry viet, but thats my impression.

I've visited and cached just a bit in Germany and was amazed how unsafe certain tourist areas were ( non-caching areas )...I mentioned to local visitors that in the U.S. I could see tons of possible lawsuits. Their comment was that Germany was not the U.S. and they accepted responsibility for their actions.....they said you could sue but it wouldn't get anywhere.

Again, I love geocaching and have been to dozens , if not hundreds, of areas where I could have been injured or killed.....its the chance we CHOOSE to take.....driving is probably the most dangerous ( it was in Germany ).

If you don't want to cache at night, don't. If you don't want to climb that tree or mountain ( I've done both) then don't.

I see nothing that needs to change and I think this thread is about 16 or 17 pages too long.

8.4k · January 13, 2012

Again, I love geocaching and have been to dozens , if not hundreds, of areas where I could have been injured or killed.....its the chance we CHOOSE to take.....driving is probably the most dangerous ( it was in Germany ).

If you don't want to cache at night, don't. If you don't want to climb that tree or mountain ( I've done both) then don't.

I see nothing that needs to change and I think this thread is about 16 or 17 pages too long.

Bam,

We have never met but I have a great deal of respect for you and your contributions to geocaching.

Having visited your place of business (you were off that day in 2005), I know that safety is a practice you take seriously.

I too agree that the basic practice of geocaching doesn't need to change, but what does need to change is the mindset of the geocachers themselves.

There were 30+ ways to prevent Willi's accidental death and almost every one if not all points to a cultural problem. Do you or anyone here dispute that? I would like to hear dissenting arguments that there were any less ways or that there was NO WAY at all to prevent the death of this 21 year old kid. It was all his fault and that's the end of it. Or it was the CO's fault and that's the end of it. Or both... Because I don't see it that way. I welcome disagreement. It helps me refine my thoughts.

If things were different Willi should not have had the choice to die that night. :mellow:

What happens when/if another person dies and there are as many or more ways that it could have been prevented? :unsure: I seriously doubt we'll see as perfect a storm as this one. We certainly didn't see it in any of the other 4 geocaching deaths, but I won't rule it out if there isn't a change in the global mindset toward caching smarter and safer and educating folks on how to better follow the guidelines and permission requirements. It doesn't need to be different tomorrow, but but we should start down that path. It's the right thing to do and it won't fundamentally change anything about the activity.

1.2k · January 13, 2012

... and Snoogans it would honor the young man's name!

8.4k · January 13, 2012

... and Snoogans it would honor the young man's name!

If someone takes it that way, fine, but that kind of thinking could go too far in the wrong hands. Look what happened earlier in this thread with folks in the USA putting SBA's on German caches.

All we need to do is raise awareness and begin to create a geocaching culture of safety. We don't need to put a name behind it like Amber Alerts. I'm sorry Willi died and hopefully it wasn't for no reason at all... At least it wasn't for no reason at all in Texas.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Snoogans

1.2k · January 14, 2012

I love the colors of that forum - looking sharp! Can I join? My uncle live in the Houston area...

9.3k · January 14, 2012

Can I join?

Only if you promise, on your honor, to do your best.

To do your duty to (your deity of choice) and your country, and to obey the Safety Forum Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep yourself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

6.1k · January 14, 2012

Can I join?

Only if you promise, on your honor, to do your best.

To do your duty to (your deity of choice) and your country, and to obey the Safety Forum Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep yourself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

You forgot trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave..

6.1k · January 14, 2012

Look what happened earlier in this thread with folks in the USA putting SBA's on German caches.

Those SBA's were all about raising awareness and instigating a culture of safety. The German reviewer and Groundspeak is aware that there are some who know that it is in an illegal and inappropriate area. If it had been archived, then the publication of it could be written off as an anomaly. However it was not. This indicates, and confirms, that it may just be the tip of the iceberg, and raises awareness of this fact to everyone who has heard of it. If there is a serious injury or death at that cache, everyone will be aware of the previous unheeded SBA's which pointed out that it was in an illegal and inappropriate area. At that time it will be rather difficult for Groundspeak to say that they were unaware of the situation. Everyone will then be aware of the difference between words of good intentions and conflicting actions of apathy. It is all about awareness. You are very much aware of this, I gather.

Here is the listing:

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

It had 5 people watching it when I first became aware of it a few weeks ago. There are now 24.

Everyone is very much aware that it is illegal and still listed.

Edited January 14, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

2k · January 14, 2012

Ssshhhhhh...... You're supposed to talk about safety, not do something about it.

8.4k · January 14, 2012

Look what happened earlier in this thread with folks in the USA putting SBA's on German caches.

Those SBA's were all about raising awareness and instigating a culture of safety. The German reviewer and Groundspeak is aware that there are some who know that it is in an illegal and inappropriate area. If it had been archived, then the publication of it could be written off as an anomaly. However it was not. This indicates, and confirms, that it may just be the tip of the iceberg, and raises awareness of this fact to everyone who has heard of it. If there is a serious injury or death at that cache, everyone will be aware of the previous unheeded SBA's which pointed out that it was in an illegal and inappropriate area. At that time it will be rather difficult for Groundspeak to say that they were unaware of the situation. Everyone will then be aware of the difference between words of good intentions and conflicting actions of apathy. It is all about awareness. You are very much aware of this, I gather.

Here is the listing:

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

It had 5 people watching it when I first became aware of it a few weeks ago. There are now 24.

Everyone is very much aware that it is illegal and still listed.

There are 25 cachers watching that cache now. :anibad:

That cache is 5600+ miles from my home. I don't speak German. I read the english logs and my limitd understanding of German helps me think I understand most of the 1 SBA remaining on the page. I do have eyes. The satellite photo and picture gallery don't tell me if the cache is truly illegal or not. It does tell me there is elevated risk and I see folks climbing it that don't appear to have fall protection. None of this would prompt me to post an SBA on the cache from where I sit... But it does further illustrate the need to have more safety information available to the community. Thanks for that.

It is not within my ethics to post an SBA on that cache unless I found the owner of the property and the sign and they confirmed that the cache was indeed listed without permission. What are the odds of me doing that?

Nope. You've clearly illustrated the need for the community and the listing service to change its mindset regarding safety.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Snoogans

7.2k · January 14, 2012

You folks really don't want me to come out of the woodwork, now do you? If you have something to add, then great. Otherwise...

8.4k · January 14, 2012

To be perfectly clear with what I have to add: I think a safety forum is a stupid idea. I don't think it is needed. I think that this was a one off incident and the reaction to it has been way off based and emotionally charged.

Then please, if you will, tackle the question I have for those that disagree. You would be the very first one. Your side of the fence doesn't seem to have a logical counterpoint to it:

There were 30+ ways to prevent Willi's accidental death and almost every one if not all points to a cultural problem. Do you or anyone here dispute that? I would like to hear dissenting arguments that there were any less ways or that there was NO WAY at all to prevent the death of this 21 year old kid. It was all his fault and that's the end of it. Or it was the CO's fault and that's the end of it. Or both... Because I don't see it that way. I welcome disagreement. It helps me refine my thoughts.

I further believe that it is ridiculous for people to talk about safety in one post and then talk about people for reporting inappropriate caches in another post.

You cannot have it both ways. We're either supposed to be encouraged to report caches that you know are illegal or you are not.

I explained my ethics on that matter, perhaps you still have me on ignore and you didn't click to read that post. I believe first hand reporting is required, otherwise it's just a witch hunt and totally without merit or credibility.

I'm sorry that some people do not agree with that posistion and if it gets me booted from these forums so be it!

A safety forum would be voluntary. If Groundspeak endorses safety awareness through its various media and encourages event hosts to give a brief safety message, no one can force you to read them or to participate.

In short, what is it specifically that you fear from other cachers voluntarily upping the safety awareness of the rest of the community at large? I don't get your logic. Please, you or anyone that opposes my proposal, please enlighten those of us on the other side of the fence.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Snoogans

1.2k · January 14, 2012

I believe first hand reporting is required, otherwise it's just a witch hunt and totally without merit or credibility.

I agree with this.

2k · January 14, 2012

I believe first hand reporting is required, otherwise it's just a witch hunt and totally without merit or credibility.

I agree with this.

I agree to a point. If all you are going by is Google Earth to make a judgement, then yeah, you should probably leave it to the locals.

But if someone has brought it to your attention that the problem exists and they are unable or unwilling to post the NA themselves, then I see no problem with someone posting a long distance NA log on that cache.

2k · January 14, 2012

I would like to hear dissenting arguments that there were any less ways or that there was NO WAY at all to prevent the death of this 21 year old kid.

You'll never hear anyone say there was NO WAY at all to prevent the death of this 21 year old kid. He could have stayed home. That automatically means there was at least one way to prevent the death.

There were a lot of things that could have led to this tragic accident. One very big contributing factor was that the cache should not have existed to begin with. We have tools already in place that could and should have been utilized to remove that cache from the listings.

But regardless of other contributing factors, every single one of us has personal accountability.

There was an incident around July 2010 that caused a dark blot on these forums. I was at the forefront of that incident.

I could have pointed to fairly poor moderation of sock puppet accounts as an excuse for things turning out as badly as they did.

I could have pointed to a mob mentality as an excuse for things turning out as badly as they did.

But at the end of the day the only person responsible for the things I said was ME. It really didn't matter what else was going on. I am the one that jumped to conclusions.

I see the same thing here. As CR has pointed out numerous times, regardless of what was or was not pointed out on a cache listing, there were many things that should have been crystal clear to the victim upon arrival at the cache location.

At any point had he turned around and gone home, he MIGHT still be alive today.

I further believe that it is ridiculous for people to talk about safety in one post and then talk about people for reporting inappropriate caches in another post.

You cannot have it both ways. We're either supposed to be encouraged to report caches that you know are illegal or you are not.

I believe first hand reporting is required, otherwise it's just a witch hunt and totally without merit or credibility.

I agree to a point. If all you are going by is Google Earth to make a judgement, then yeah, you should probably leave it to the locals.

But if someone has brought it to your attention that the problem exists and they are unable or unwilling to post the NA themselves, then I see no problem with someone posting a long distance NA log on that cache.

I'm sorry that some people do not agree with that posistion and if it gets me booted from these forums so be it!

A safety forum would be voluntary. If Groundspeak endorses safety awareness through its various media and encourages event hosts to give a brief safety message, no one can force you to read them or to participate.

In short, what is it specifically that you fear from other cachers voluntarily upping the safety awareness of the rest of the community at large? I don't get your logic. Please, you or anyone that opposes my proposal, please enlighten those of us on the other side of the fence.

Well I would hope that any safety forum would work the same way as the rest of the forums work.

And to be honest, I hope Groundspeak will go ahead and create one for you here. Then you can continue to preach your message to the 4 or 5 people that might frequent that section and we won't have to see you repeat it over and over here.

I don't "fear" your message. I just don't see where you've stated much more than most of us frequenting these forums already know.

If a man is going to ignore the danger right before his eyes, what makes you think he's going to have a sudden epiphany because he sees a list of warnings in a forum? It's been pointed out that probably less than 1% of cachers even read these forums.

But if it makes you feel better, then I say go for it. At the very least it will give you peace of mind that you have done all you can do to prevent the next death.

January 15, 2012

I hope Groundspeak will go ahead and create one for you here. Then you can continue to preach your message to the 4 or 5 people that might frequent that section and we won't have to see you repeat it over and over here.

You do know you don't have to read threads you don't like the content of don't you?

Or should we ask Groundspeak to add a anti-safety forum forum so we won't have to see you repeat the same thing over and over? Seems a pot vs kettle thing going on here.

We can do nothing to change past events, but we can examine ways that might prevent similar things from happening in the future. Having clearer warnings and the community becoming more active in reporting improper caches might not save Bill and Tom and Sally but it might save George. Isn't it worth it to at least try?

2k · January 15, 2012

I hope Groundspeak will go ahead and create one for you here. Then you can continue to preach your message to the 4 or 5 people that might frequent that section and we won't have to see you repeat it over and over here.

You do know you don't have to read threads you don't like the content of don't you?

Or should we ask Groundspeak to add a anti-safety forum forum so we won't have to see you repeat the same thing over and over? Seems a pot vs kettle thing going on here.

We can do nothing to change past events, but we can examine ways that might prevent similar things from happening in the future. Having clearer warnings and the community becoming more active in reporting improper caches might not save Bill and Tom and Sally but it might save George. Isn't it worth it to at least try?

I say go for it. It takes about 2 minutes to add a new section. There are lots of sections in the forums that I never frequent.

2k · January 15, 2012

the community becoming more active in reporting improper caches might not save Bill and Tom and Sally but it might save George.

I've said all along that we should work on getting people to avail themselves of the current tools. I am all for encouraging people to report improper caches.

I think we should also work on our attitude towards people who do take the time to report illegal caches. We could start by ridding ourselves of the term "cache cops".

It's a bit ironic to tell people they should report problem caches and then to call them cache cops when they do so.

1.3k · January 15, 2012

I think we should also work on our attitude towards people who do take the time to report illegal caches. We could start by ridding ourselves of the term "cache cops".

It's a bit ironic to tell people they should report problem caches and then to call them cache cops when they do so.

Amen to that. there is definitely a "Don't ask, don't tell." mentality in the geocaching community when it comes to reporting caches placed without permission.

I've been away for a while so maybe it's changed, but from my experience, most of the caching community looks the other way on illegally placed caches and many deride those who do not.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

2.8k · January 15, 2012

I've been away for a while so maybe it's changed, but from my experience, most of the caching community looks the other way on illegally placed caches and many deride those who do not.

Agreed. I see caches being found over and over, with no one reporting that it is behind "No Trespassing" signs.

When I come across a cache in violation of the guidelines, I report it with an email to my local reviewer. Done.

Edited January 15, 2012 by BBWolf+3Pigs

19k · January 15, 2012

There were 30+ ways to prevent Willi's accidental death and almost every one if not all points to a cultural problem. Do you or anyone here dispute that?

Where did that "30+" thing come from? Did I miss a very important post somewhere along the line? Can somebody please provide a link?

9.3k · January 15, 2012

I don't know if the number 30 is estimated or if it was determined through investigation, (I must have missed the same post), but I would be willing to bet it is fairly accurate. Those who dissect cause and effect for a living would likely have little or no problem coming up with at least a couple dozen ways this could, technically, have been avoided... Maybe.

January 15, 2012

I'm sure there are 30+ ways to have prevented this from happening. Not caching at night. A gazillion power flashlight to show the way. The cache not existing. The canal or whatever not existing. Divine intervention. None of these things happened though Hindsight 20/20, y'know? All of us have probably had something bad happen to us. Not tragic, not fatal or maiming, just bad. Vehicle going in the ditch, backing over the neighbor's dog, failing a class, showing up to an important event late. In hindsight, we come up numerous things. If only we had left earlier we could have avoided X, if only we would've taken a right at Albuquerque then X could've been prevented. They're all things that we somehow failed to see at the beginning.

Something terrible happened. Someone lost their life and it really shouldn't have happened. We can't change what happened, but we can try to prevent it from happening again to someone else. The more I think about it, the more I think that it's easiest if we look out for ourselves and whoever is in our group and if we let others know what's up, like "Hey, next people out, part of the floor is missing" and taking note. Not everyone will see this note, not everyone will actually care about this note. It seems like it's ultimately up to the individual to take care of themselves

I would like to see a link to this 30+ thing and see what all cultural problems are supposed to be existing here Not trying to be snotty, just genuinely curious about what sorts of problems are supposedly existing within this community.

January 15, 2012

I believe the 30+ was in reference to the 30+ number of finders prior to the death that could have reported the cache since it clearly violated the rules and they could have posted the warning note if one was available.

January 15, 2012

A safety forum- well some kind of write up about safety anyway- wouldn't hurt, might help. It sounds good to me. (I was voted geocaching safety patroller by my local geocaching club because I list lots of precautions on my cache pages.) I doubt though that the people who really needed to heed the advice in a safety forum would bother looking at it, but at least it would be there and it might get people thinking.

Perhaps just a little something could also be added to the disclaimer that everyone is supposed to agree to when they become members.

Oh...say something like, Although geocaching is proving to be a great pastime for families it is important to remember that ALL caches carry some risks. Any number of things, snow and ice, muggers, poisonous snakes, stiff pointy branches, bees, slippery footing, live wires, etc. can easily turn looking for the most simplest of caches into a dangerous situation. Please cache safely.

2.8k · January 15, 2012

Perhaps just a little something could also be added to the disclaimer that everyone is supposed to agree to when they become members.

Oh...say something like, Although geocaching is proving to be a great pastime for families it is important to remember that ALL caches carry some risks. Any number of things, snow and ice, muggers, poisonous snakes, stiff pointy branches, bees, slippery footing, live wires, etc. can easily turn looking for the most simplest of caches into a dangerous situation. Please cache safely.

You mean something like this? (Bolding mine)

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

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

(Edit to snip quote)

Edited January 15, 2012 by BBWolf+3Pigs

6.7k · January 15, 2012

The Online Geocacher magazine would be happy to publish articles on geocaching safety. In fact a regular column on the topic would be welcomed.

Anyone interested in the topic is invited to submit articles.

Send them to me or to onlinegeocacher@gmail.com

Edited January 15, 2012 by TheAlabamaRambler

1.2k · January 15, 2012

These are open forums and they should be places where everyone is welcomed to discuss whatever geocaching-related topic they'd like. Instead, they are likely to get a bunch of, "that's not on the schedule until Tuesday", or "IBTL", or "not that again", or "you sound like a cache cop". And that's before the inevitable profile mining begins, along with the accusations about being a sock puppet or having a hidden agenda. For an allegedly family friendly activity, these forums are really not very family friendly. If an 11 year old wanders in here to ask an innocent question, what is the most likely outcome: that they will be welcomed to the forums and treated decently, or that they will have their head chewed off by a bunch of people who are mostly old enough to be the poor kid's grandparents, but who've apparently lost any ability to be polite to strangers? There are multiple topics in these forums, which you are well aware of, that exist solely to make fun of other people behind their backs.

Post of the year, so true - it is so easy to get caught up in it. Wow, this should be a sticky and everyone should be required to read this!

8.4k · January 15, 2012

I believe the 30+ was in reference to the 30+ number of finders prior to the death that could have reported the cache since it clearly violated the rules and they could have posted the warning note if one was available.

This is the bulk of the number and it speaks of a geocaching cultural problem that does need to change. It is also one that most likely won't change across the board until the listing service takes notice and facilitates efforts to change it. :mellow:

You could split cause and effect hairs to make the number reasonably much higher, but I am addressing the 30+ ways OUR culture could have prevented Willimax's death right now. :tired: :sad:

This accident is as close to a perfect storm as we will ever see. The natural reactive response is to blame the dead guy and hope no one holds a mirror up to our faces about what we could have all done better. Numbers 1 & 9 on the list below is that mirror. There is a disconnect between personal safety and care for the safety of others in the geocaching culture and that needs to change. Is beginning to change at least in my circle of influence.

Am I saying we need to pad the landscape with bubble wrap and caches with elevated risk factors should be archived? Heck no! I love caches that offer some adventure and some of my fondest memories are from hunts where I gave some blood for the find.

We need to (as users) question the permissions for a cache when they seem to be in an off limits area.

We (as users) need to first KNOW the guidelines whether we hide caches or not and report caches that appear to be listed outside the guidelines.

We need (as users) to eliminate the social stigma that exists for folks that post SBA's on caches. The days of dissing so called cache cops need to end.

I could go on but my time is short this morning. The Texans are going to beat Baltimore for the first time in their history and we have company coming over...

This was post #699 in this thread for those that missed it:

Here is my version of the facts gleaned from the article and the cache page and a teeny, but recordable, bit of common knowledge:

(Feel free to comment if you feel something is missing, in the wrong order, or doesn't belong there.)

1. The CO placed the cache in an off limits area. Whether he knew or not.

2. Off limits signage was missing.

3. The lock to the catwalk was either broken or missing.

4. The CO submitted the cache checking the boxes that they had read the guidelines and had obtained adequate permission.

5. The CO encouraged folks to go there at night because of “muggle activity.”

6. The CO placed the cache near the gap in the catwalk evidenced by the hint.

7. It passed review and was published. (No judgments made on the process. Just the fact.)

8. The cache, in fact, did not meet Groundspeak’s hiding guidelines.

9. 34 finders either didn't know the guidelines well enough to report it, didn't care enough to report it, or were afraid to report it. Mix and match.

10. 2 of the finders reported near misses with the gap in the catwalk while hunting for the cache.

11. Willimax got the coords to the cache from geocaching.com and chose to hunt for it.

12. After arriving on scene alone, Willi chose to go ahead and search for the cache.

13. The accident appears to have happened at night.

14. The temp may have been cold, but other weather factors are unknown.

15. It appears Willi fell through the gap in the catwalk very near the cache.

16. The water level below was very low offering no cushion to the fall.

17. Fatal injuries (to the head) were caused by a fall from the height above the (appears to be) drainage canal or urban river. (Manmade looking.)

18. Willi didn’t die right away. He was able to crawl a few yards before succumbing to his injuries.

19. Willi was 21yo when he died.

6.1k · January 15, 2012

Look what happened earlier in this thread with folks in the USA putting SBA's on German caches.

Those SBA's were all about raising awareness and instigating a culture of safety. The German reviewer and Groundspeak is aware that there are some who know that it is in an illegal and inappropriate area. If it had been archived, then the publication of it could be written off as an anomaly. However it was not. This indicates, and confirms, that it may just be the tip of the iceberg, and raises awareness of this fact to everyone who has heard of it. If there is a serious injury or death at that cache, everyone will be aware of the previous unheeded SBA's which pointed out that it was in an illegal and inappropriate area. At that time it will be rather difficult for Groundspeak to say that they were unaware of the situation. Everyone will then be aware of the difference between words of good intentions and conflicting actions of apathy. It is all about awareness. You are very much aware of this, I gather.

Here is the listing:

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

It had 5 people watching it when I first became aware of it a few weeks ago. There are now 24.

Everyone is very much aware that it is illegal and still listed.

There are 25 cachers watching that cache now.

That cache is 5600+ miles from my home. I don't speak German. I read the english logs and my limitd understanding of German helps me think I understand most of the 1 SBA remaining on the page. I do have eyes. The satellite photo and picture gallery don't tell me if the cache is truly illegal or not. It does tell me there is elevated risk and I see folks climbing it that don't appear to have fall protection. None of this would prompt me to post an SBA on the cache from where I sit... But it does further illustrate the need to have more safety information available to the community. Thanks for that.

On my browser I can right click "translate with Bing" and I get a chunky, but coherent translated version.

It appears to require clmbing a sign tower in a commercial parking lot.

It is not within my ethics to post an SBA on that cache unless I found the owner of the property and the sign and they confirmed that the cache was indeed listed without permission. What are the odds of me doing that?

Mostly any cache could be listed if it had permission. Buried 5 gallon buckets, nails in trees, writing coords on the back of forestry signs.. The unwritten rule is to assume that geocaches do not have explicit permission. Why would buried caches be disallowed otherwise? They could be copied by another cacher that does not have permission. If every cache had explicit permission, there really would not be any need for buried or defacement guidelines.

This cache requires climbing in an area that is obviously not allowed and illegal. Performing illegal activites has an inherent risk of extra danger. Worrying about the POPO, Five-O, LEOs, smokey, cheese, doughnut patrol, fuzz, heat, gumshoe, bullen, coppers, or public safety officers showing up, usually means not using any extra precautions. Using a harness in the daytime? You have to be kidding me.

Nope. You've clearly illustrated the need for the community and the listing service to change its mindset regarding safety.

So your ethics allow you to accept that a reviewer living hundreds of miles from a cache location, will publish a cache in an obviously illegal area, listed by someone using a throwaway e-mail address, based on their word. But you shouldn't say anything. Is that correct?

6.1k · January 15, 2012

You can cache if you want to

You can leave your friends behind

Cause your friends don't cache and if they don't cache

Well they're no friends of mine

I say, we can go where we want to

A place where they will never find

And we can act like we come from out of this world

Leave the micros far behind

And we can cache

We can go when we want to

The night is young and so am I

And we can dress real neat from our hats to our feet

And surprise 'em with the FTF cry

Say, we can act if want to

If we don't nobody will

And you can act real rude and totally removed

And I can act like an imbecile

I say, we can cache, we can cache

Everything out of control

We can cache, we can cache

We're doing it from wall to wall

We can cache, we can cache

Everybody look at your hands

We can cache, we can cache

Everybody takin' the cha-a-a-ance

Safety cache

Is it safe to cache

S-s-s-s A-a-a-a F-f-f-f E-e-e-e T-t-t-t Y-y-y-y

Safety, cache!

We can cache if we want to

We've got all your life and mine

As long as we abuse it, never gonna lose it

Everything'll work out right

I say, we can cache if we want to

We can leave your friends behind

'Cause your friends don't cache and if they don't cache

Well they're no friends of mine

[Refrain]

Is it safe to cache, oh is it safe to cache [6x]

Is it safe to cache

1.2k · January 15, 2012

you are off key! 8-)

1.2k · January 15, 2012

I could go on but my time is short this morning. The Texans are going to beat Baltimore for the first time in their history and we have company coming over...

Ain't gonna happen!

Go RAVENS ! ! !

8.4k · January 15, 2012

It is not within my ethics to post an SBA on that cache unless I found the owner of the property and the sign and they confirmed that the cache was indeed listed without permission. What are the odds of me doing that?

This cache requires climbing in an area that is obviously not allowed and illegal. Performing illegal activites has an inherent risk of extra danger. Worrying about the POPO, Five-O, LEOs, smokey, cheese, doughnut patrol, fuzz, heat, gumshoe, bullen, coppers, or public safety officers showing up, usually means not using any extra precautions. Using a harness in the daytime? You have to be kidding me.

Nope. You've clearly illustrated the need for the community and the listing service to change its mindset regarding safety.

So your ethics allow you to accept that a reviewer living hundreds of miles from a cache location, will publish a cache in an obviously illegal area, listed by someone using a throwaway e-mail address, based on their word. But you shouldn't say anything. Is that correct?

How Groundspeak reviews caches is not an issue that will probably ever be discussed in an open forum with this peanut gallery. Their process is unknown to me, so I can't comment on its rightness or wrongness. Ideally, reviewers should have knowledge of the area, but again, I am not privy to their requirements. I'll give criticism a pass until I know more.

You post statements as if they were fact. What is obvious to you is not so obvious to me. I saw a reference to "Pigs" on the cache page that gives me pause, but again, without doing due diligence to be somewhat certain, I will keep my nose firmly 5600 miles away where it belongs.

Please post your due diligence in tracking down the property owner, the sign owner (if they are not the same entity) and let those of us understand better how to go about shutting down caches we have never visited.

I do have my suspicions about that cache, but it would take my first hand boots on the ground for me to take action. Not one thing is "obvious" to me at this distance, but I am open minded enough to learn from you how to gather enough FACTS to make a judgment so I too can become a crusader against caches I perceive to be listed outside of the listing guidelines even though I have never visited them.

2.3k · January 15, 2012

It is not within my ethics to post an SBA on that cache unless I found the owner of the property and the sign and they confirmed that the cache was indeed listed without permission. What are the odds of me doing that?

This cache requires climbing in an area that is obviously not allowed and illegal. Performing illegal activites has an inherent risk of extra danger. Worrying about the POPO, Five-O, LEOs, smokey, cheese, doughnut patrol, fuzz, heat, gumshoe, bullen, coppers, or public safety officers showing up, usually means not using any extra precautions. Using a harness in the daytime? You have to be kidding me.

Nope. You've clearly illustrated the need for the community and the listing service to change its mindset regarding safety.

So your ethics allow you to accept that a reviewer living hundreds of miles from a cache location, will publish a cache in an obviously illegal area, listed by someone using a throwaway e-mail address, based on their word. But you shouldn't say anything. Is that correct?

How Groundspeak reviews caches is not an issue that will probably ever be discussed in an open forum with this peanut gallery. Their process is unknown to me, so I can't comment on its rightness or wrongness. Ideally, reviewers should have knowledge of the area, but again, I am not privy to their requirements. I'll give criticism a pass until I know more.

You post statements as if they were fact. What is obvious to you is not so obvious to me. I saw a reference to "Pigs" on the cache page that gives me pause, but again, without doing due diligence to be somewhat certain, I will keep my nose firmly 5600 miles away where it belongs.

Please post your due diligence in tracking down the property owner, the sign owner (if they are not the same entity) and let those of us understand better how to go about shutting down caches we have never visited.

I do have my suspicions about that cache, but it would take my first hand boots on the ground for me to take action. Not one thing is "obvious" to me at this distance, but I am open minded enough to learn from you how to gather enough FACTS to make a judgment so I too can become a crusader against caches I perceive to be listed outside of the listing guidelines even though I have never visited them.

You have inadvertently stumbled across the problem of the reviewers. They have to take the cache owners at their word that this is permissible place to place a cache. I don't expect any reviewer to spent the 2 hours the other day I spent scrutinizing a plat map to determine if where I wanted to put a cache was was accessible on public lands.

You want the reviewers (who are volunteers) to do more but you are not even willing to toss an NA on a cache to encourage a reviewer to look further into it.

2k · January 15, 2012

An NA log does not archive or even disable a cache. All it does is alerts the reviewer to whatever concern you place in your log.

Perhaps the reviewer did not realize just how and where the cache was located. But now that it's been found a few times it is rather obvious even to people on the other side of the pond that it's located in an area that needs more than "adequate" permission.

Do you really care about the next Willimax or is it just talk?

If you really care then you should post an NA or email the reviewer and alert them to the issue.

If the cache has proper permission, it should be a rather simple thing to sort out.

If not, perhaps you just saved a life. Don't be one of the 30 silent voices. Be brave. Be courageous. Be a hero!

1.2k · January 15, 2012

I could go on but my time is short this morning. The Texans are going to beat Baltimore for the first time in their history and we have company coming over...

Ain't gonna happen!

Go RAVENS ! ! !

Wait make that.......

did not happen!~

January 15, 2012

Perhaps just a little something could also be added to the disclaimer that everyone is supposed to agree to when they become members.

Oh...say something like, Although geocaching is proving to be a great pastime for families it is important to remember that ALL caches carry some risks. Any number of things, snow and ice, muggers, poisonous snakes, stiff pointy branches, bees, slippery footing, live wires, etc. can easily turn looking for the most simplest of caches into a dangerous situation. Please cache safely.

You mean something like this? (Bolding mine)

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

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

(Edit to snip quote)

Thanx BBWolf and 3Pigs. It was late at night and I was tired and didn't want to look it up- knew I'd be hearing from someone.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Luckless

3.6k · January 15, 2012

You can cache if you want to

You can leave your friends behind

Cause your friends don't cache and if they don't cache

Well they're no friends of mine

I say, we can go where we want to

A place where they will never find

And we can act like we come from out of this world

Leave the micros far behind

And we can cache

We can go when we want to

The night is young and so am I

And we can dress real neat from our hats to our feet

And surprise 'em with the FTF cry

Say, we can act if want to

If we don't nobody will

And you can act real rude and totally removed

And I can act like an imbecile

I say, we can cache, we can cache

Everything out of control

We can cache, we can cache

We're doing it from wall to wall

We can cache, we can cache

Everybody look at your hands

We can cache, we can cache

Everybody takin' the cha-a-a-ance

Safety cache

Is it safe to cache

Is it safe to cache

S-s-s-s A-a-a-a F-f-f-f E-e-e-e T-t-t-t Y-y-y-y

Safety, cache!

We can cache if we want to

We've got all your life and mine

As long as we abuse it, never gonna lose it

Everything'll work out right

I say, we can cache if we want to

We can leave your friends behind

'Cause your friends don't cache and if they don't cache

Well they're no friends of mine

[Refrain]

Is it safe to cache, oh is it safe to cache [6x]

Is it safe to cache

Thank you for keeping it on topic. :laughing:

January 15, 2012

You post statements as if they were fact. What is obvious to you is not so obvious to me. I saw a reference to "Pigs" on the cache page that gives me pause, but again, without doing due diligence to be somewhat certain, I will keep my nose firmly 5600 miles away where it belongs.

Since those particular logs are written in English, their usage "pigs" is obvious in its intent. Without visiting the cache, I have nothing to say about its location, but I did notice that the description on the cache page seems to be a clear violation of the commercial cache guidelines. Another data point to add to the pile when we are wondering about consistency.

8.4k · January 15, 2012

You post statements as if they were fact. What is obvious to you is not so obvious to me. I saw a reference to "Pigs" on the cache page that gives me pause, but again, without doing due diligence to be somewhat certain, I will keep my nose firmly 5600 miles away where it belongs.

Since those particular logs are written in English, their usage "pigs" is obvious in its intent. Without visiting the cache, I have nothing to say about its location, but I did notice that the description on the cache page seems to be a clear violation of the commercial cache guidelines. Another data point to add to the pile when we are wondering about consistency.

Yes, the reference to pigs is obvious. What isn't obvious is if the property owner(s) has given permission. If they have given permission then the logs are a moot point. While I too believe that this cache may not be within listing guidelines, the difference remains that I would only act from solid grounds to act. No one has produced those grounds. The smarter route is to get a local to report it anonymously at Contact@Groundspeak.com.

If I were the cache owner and the cache was legit, I would have to seriously consider archiving if finders were climbing the sign without regard for their safety.

How is it commercial? Please explain.

January 15, 2012

An NA log does not archive or even disable a cache. All it does is alerts the reviewer to whatever concern you place in your log.

Perhaps the reviewer did not realize just how and where the cache was located. But now that it's been found a few times it is rather obvious even to people on the other side of the pond that it's located in an area that needs more than "adequate" permission.

Do you really care about the next Willimax or is it just talk?

If you really care then you should post an NA or email the reviewer and alert them to the issue.

If the cache has proper permission, it should be a rather simple thing to sort out.

If not, perhaps you just saved a life. Don't be one of the 30 silent voices. Be brave. Be courageous. Be a hero!

I haven't had the need to submit an NA, so how does work? Not like "Oh, click this button, blah blah blah" but whose name pops up where? I mean, if I clicked on Joe Blow's cache and said it needed archiving, who sees what? The reviewer probably knows I clicked and reported, but does Joe Blow? I guess I'm concerned how anonymous it is :unsure: I don't want people to see me as this obnoxious whistle blower out to ruin everyone's fun, but I don't want another incident like this to happen either. I guess the real thing is that it doesn't matter what others' opinions are so I shouldn't be concerned. It's not like I'd ever find something that would be like this anyways. But, I still want to know just in case something happens.

If you submit an NA would it be posted on the cache page and if you just e-mail the reviewer with necessary information would it be anonymous then? Is that how it would work?

January 15, 2012

If you submit an NA would it be posted on the cache page and if you just e-mail the reviewer with necessary information would it be anonymous then? Is that how it would work?

That is how I understand the current practice to work.

Posting a SBA log works the same as any other in the log type pull down menu for the user, but the site will also forward that particular type to a reviewer.

People have asked for a way to submit an SBA anonymously and let the site choose which reviewer it is sent to, but I don't think the idea has gone far.

10.1k · January 16, 2012

And nineteen pages later, the facts are still the same. Willi made a tragic mistake. It is not relevant whether the cache met guidelines. He made a tragic mistae. Not using proper caution. If all cache not meeting guidelines were archived, it might have made a difference, in this case. But people can neglect to use caution on caches that do meet guidelines. Hey. My caching companion fell flat on his snout tripping over an uneven piece of pavement. Lack of proper precaution (or clumsiness). Proper care needs be used everywhere.

The cache in question has an inherent danger. This is noted in the logs. Okay. I don't read logs befor I go cache hunting. That's my problem. I've been on the tops of cliffs. If the situation looks too dangerous, I will ignore the cache. Willi chose not to do that. Nor use the proper illumination show the danger. Sorry. I'm not going to blame anyone other than Willi for not using proper precaution.

And 19 pages later, we're still into a major problem with the modern world: You have to protect me from myself, or I'm going to sue! One of the reasons things are so expensive these days.

Willi made a tragic mistake. But it was Willi that made the mistake.

19k · January 16, 2012

Hey. My caching companion fell flat on his snout tripping over an uneven piece of pavement.

Jesus!!! Tell him to be more careful before somebody has to start a thread about him!!*

(*That's Harry's caching partner's name. Seriously.)

Edited January 16, 2012 by knowschad

2k · January 16, 2012

An NA log does not archive or even disable a cache. All it does is alerts the reviewer to whatever concern you place in your log.

Perhaps the reviewer did not realize just how and where the cache was located. But now that it's been found a few times it is rather obvious even to people on the other side of the pond that it's located in an area that needs more than "adequate" permission.

Do you really care about the next Willimax or is it just talk?

If you really care then you should post an NA or email the reviewer and alert them to the issue.

If the cache has proper permission, it should be a rather simple thing to sort out.

If not, perhaps you just saved a life. Don't be one of the 30 silent voices. Be brave. Be courageous. Be a hero!

I haven't had the need to submit an NA, so how does work? Not like "Oh, click this button, blah blah blah" but whose name pops up where? I mean, if I clicked on Joe Blow's cache and said it needed archiving, who sees what? The reviewer probably knows I clicked and reported, but does Joe Blow? I guess I'm concerned how anonymous it is I don't want people to see me as this obnoxious whistle blower out to ruin everyone's fun, but I don't want another incident like this to happen either. I guess the real thing is that it doesn't matter what others' opinions are so I shouldn't be concerned. It's not like I'd ever find something that would be like this anyways. But, I still want to know just in case something happens.

If you submit an NA would it be posted on the cache page and if you just e-mail the reviewer with necessary information would it be anonymous then? Is that how it would work?

NA logs are public logs same as the rest of the logs you see on a cache page. The only thing special about them is that the reviewer is notified either in some kind of queue or via email. I'm not sure of the specifics other than a reviewer is notified in such a way that s/he should respond to the log.

Emailing a reviewer is private like any other email. If you want to alert the reviewer anonymously, this is the way to go. Most cache listings will have the published log usually as the first log (end of page) on the listing. If the cache does not have a published log, you can look at nearby caches for the published log or email Groundspeak directly at contact@geocaching.com.

2k · January 16, 2012

And nineteen pages later, the facts are still the same. Willi made a tragic mistake. It is not relevant whether the cache met guidelines. He made a tragic mistae. Not using proper caution. If all cache not meeting guidelines were archived, it might have made a difference, in this case. But people can neglect to use caution on caches that do meet guidelines. Hey. My caching companion fell flat on his snout tripping over an uneven piece of pavement. Lack of proper precaution (or clumsiness). Proper care needs be used everywhere.

The cache in question has an inherent danger. This is noted in the logs. Okay. I don't read logs befor I go cache hunting. That's my problem. I've been on the tops of cliffs. If the situation looks too dangerous, I will ignore the cache. Willi chose not to do that. Nor use the proper illumination show the danger. Sorry. I'm not going to blame anyone other than Willi for not using proper precaution.

And 19 pages later, we're still into a major problem with the modern world: You have to protect me from myself, or I'm going to sue! One of the reasons things are so expensive these days.

Willi made a tragic mistake. But it was Willi that made the mistake.

That's pretty much the way I see it.

Personal Accountability: Something every human being, cacher or not, needs to start assuming for themselves.

You can talk about the 30+ ways to save Willimax until you are blue in the face. Yes, every single person that went before him could have posted a NA log asking for the cache to be archived.

The other 32 people could have mentioned the missing grate like the other 2 did.

The CO could have thought better of hiding that cache or at least put all the relevant dangers he knew about on the listing.

But as CR has pointed out many times now, there were enough red flags that should have been obvious to Willimax upon arrival for him to make an informed choice to seek that cache or not.

I like to think he was up to the challenge, WANTED the challenge, and accepted the challenge.

Something went wrong. We don't know what happened. Other the fact that he died, most of what has been discussed is speculation.

What we can make a fairly good assumption about is that Willimax died doing something he loved. But I don't think his death was due to ignorance of facts. I believe he was well aware of the dangers he faced that night and he CHOSE to do it anyway.

Sometimes unfortunate accidents occur.

19k · January 16, 2012

I guess nobody believes in fate anymore. It is entirely possible that nothing could have saved Willimax. Perhaps it was just his time. His maker was calling him back to a better place. It could just as well have happened on a legally placed cache as on one that was hidden without permission. It could just as well have happened that a weld broke on the catwalk instead of the grate being missing. The cache might have been archived because of reports from previous cachers, yet he attempted the find anyway.

2k · January 16, 2012

I guess nobody believes in fate anymore. It is entirely possible that nothing could have saved Willimax. Perhaps it was just his time. His maker was calling him back to a better place. It could just as well have happened on a legally placed cache as on one that was hidden without permission. It could just as well have happened that a weld broke on the catwalk instead of the grate being missing. The cache might have been archived because of reports from previous cachers, yet he attempted the find anyway.

I agree.

BUT

If you are serious about protecting people from themselves then you should be willing to post those NA's. It should not be all talk and no action. Actions speak way louder than words. :anibad:

January 16, 2012

How is it commercial? Please explain.

The cache page is essentially a brochure for a shopping mall named Murpark, complete with the Murpark logo, which means it has most, if not all of the characteristics disallowed by the guidelines.

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment