Jump to content

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


veit

Recommended Posts

and we call them accidents for a reason.

 

Yes, but in this case it was very preventable. :mellow:

 

There appears to be a broken spoke in the geocaching cultural wheel in regards to this fatality. Some of us are interested in exploring and discussing ways to prevent another tragic geocaching fatality.

 

We could start by reporting caches that violate the existing guidelines. This tragedy could have been prevented simply by archiving the illegally placed cache.

Link to comment

Regardless of the disclaimer on the site, Groundspeak is always sad to hear of the death of a cacher – particularly in the pursuit of the game. We are part of one big community, and this type of death always has an impact. Our thoughts go out to the family and friends of this cacher. As always, we hope that cachers will take care while geocaching.

 

Good to hear. Now what is Groundspeak doing to help prevent anything similar from happening again?

 

What are we geocacher doing to help prevent anything similar from happening again? Are you willing to start posting the NA logs on those caches you know are illegally placed? Or are you more concerned about having fun frolicking around in places you have no business?

 

You can't have it both ways.

Link to comment

Regardless of the disclaimer on the site, Groundspeak is always sad to hear of the death of a cacher – particularly in the pursuit of the game. We are part of one big community, and this type of death always has an impact. Our thoughts go out to the family and friends of this cacher. As always, we hope that cachers will take care while geocaching.

 

Good to hear. Now what is Groundspeak doing to help prevent anything similar from happening again?

 

What are we geocacher doing to help prevent anything similar from happening again? Are you willing to start posting the NA logs on those caches you know are illegally placed? Or are you more concerned about having fun frolicking around in places you have no business?

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

I would expand this to what is going to occur in that localized geocaching community to change it from glorifying these illegally placed caches and instead of not pursuing them and archiving them. Groundspeak can't change that culture. Groundspeak can't fix those problems. It's up to the local cachers to take some ownership of the culture that has been created and change it if it is that important to them.

Link to comment

Regardless of the disclaimer on the site, Groundspeak is always sad to hear of the death of a cacher – particularly in the pursuit of the game. We are part of one big community, and this type of death always has an impact. Our thoughts go out to the family and friends of this cacher. As always, we hope that cachers will take care while geocaching.

 

Good to hear. Now what is Groundspeak doing to help prevent anything similar from happening again?

 

What are we geocacher doing to help prevent anything similar from happening again? Are you willing to start posting the NA logs on those caches you know are illegally placed? Or are you more concerned about having fun frolicking around in places you have no business?

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

I had report a cache that was on railroad property. I send an email to the reviewer and the cache was moved to a better place. Anyone that placed an illegally cache in my area will get reported by me. We got enough black eye in the past. One time it was an ammo can next to a federal court house. (it was all before my time) :blink:

Link to comment

 

How many of the deaths have occurred in the huge leap past 1 MILLION caches listed as opposed to before that mark?

 

I believe frequency is the proper term. The frequency of fatalities has increased. Do you dispute that?

 

You need to look at deaths per 1,0000,000 caches or per 1,000,000 cache hunts. The number of incidents (deaths, injuries, etc) will most certainly go up, just because of the sheer number of people partaking in the game.

 

So I don't think anyone can dispute that frequency has increased. It's just that it's caused by the numbers of people out there.

Link to comment

I think we have identified cotributing factors to this both in and out of control of Groundspeak. If there truly are a plethora of illegally placed caches obviously this should be looked into wit the reviewer.

 

It's been noted the culture in this part of the world for m seeking caches and hiding caches is different. That is the culture that needs to be addressed locally. Cachers should be reporting these caches not gleefully doing them and not fear retaliatory behavior from peers. A private reporting system helps this.

 

Educating people on how to make a better choice would be helpful in general and to a broader population because in the end it is the seekers choice on where to go.

 

The reality is this is a more magnified problem in one geographic area. Instead if coming here only those people from that area need to stop enabling the hiders of these caches. They need to step up and say something to their little community.

 

Exactly. There are currently guidelines in place involving adequate permission. If it is obvious that a cache is located in an area where the general public should not be, then we, the caching community, should be reporting those caches.

 

Groundspeak, the arbitrator and enforcer of the guidelines, should then take appropriate action and not turn a blind eye to the permission issue.

 

Permission issues seem to be a problem across the board but from the OP's subsequent posts it would appear it is more of an issue in that part of the world.

Link to comment

Ok, after thinking about this for a while, I have to admit that the issue of caches placed illegally (without permission) does seem relevant in this context. I haven't done that many of them (from recollection only 3), so I really don't feel that qualified to talk about it. But you might be right in that they are probably inherently more dangerous than other caches. So archiving all of them might be a way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

 

If this is the general consensus or official policy of Groundspeak, please lobby them to archive all caches that include the words "Lost Place" or "LP" in one swoop. All they have to do is run a database query and archive them (and then reactivate those where it's shown that the owner has permission to place those caches). Purely for business reasons, I don't think that this is going to happen, because there would be a huge backlash from the community over here, thousands of caches and cachers would probably migrate to other listing platforms. And I don't think Groundspeak wants to lose that many paying customers. But I might be wrong. If this becomes official policy, I will certainly do my part and post NA logs on caches placed illegally that slipped through the net.

 

Personally, I don't like this solution - I think with proper warnings caches in Lost Places can be done relatively risk free. And even if this was to happen, I still want a way to be able to warn other cachers of dangers in a more efficient way than is currently possilbe.

Link to comment

Ok, after thinking about this for a while, I have to admit that the issue of caches placed illegally (without permission) does seem relevant in this context. I haven't done that many of them (from recollection only 3), so I really don't feel that qualified to talk about it. But you might be right in that they are probably inherently more dangerous than other caches. So archiving all of them might be a way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

 

If this is the general consensus or official policy of Groundspeak, please lobby them to archive all caches that include the words "Lost Place" or "LP" in one swoop. All they have to do is run a database query and archive them (and then reactivate those where it's shown that the owner has permission to place those caches). Purely for business reasons, I don't think that this is going to happen, because there would be a huge backlash from the community over here, thousands of caches and cachers would probably migrate to other listing platforms. And I don't think Groundspeak wants to lose that many paying customers. But I might be wrong. If this becomes official policy, I will certainly do my part and post NA logs on caches placed illegally that slipped through the net.

 

Personally, I don't like this solution - I think with proper warnings caches in Lost Places can be done relatively risk free. And even if this was to happen, I still want a way to be able to warn other cachers of dangers in a more efficient way than is currently possilbe.

 

So essentially you do not want to address the problems that led up to this accident. You do not want to take any ownership in the community that created this problem. You want there to be some solution that will condone and allow the placement of illegal caches.

 

Frankly, unless there is some community push back in your geocaching caching community about these caches it is a completely moot point to discuss it here. This person died doing a cache that did not meet posting guidelines because how many people (30 I think) were too scared to post an NA log that is no one's fault but the hider, the finder and the community of cachers that allowed this to happen.

 

Take some ownership for the problem that has been created there and take some steps to change the behavior in your community and we won't have to have this discussion ever again probably.

Link to comment

If this becomes official policy, I will certainly do my part and post NA logs on caches placed illegally that slipped through the net.

 

 

Not sure why this is not getting through. Posting the NA log IS official policy and is your responsibility if for no other reason then you say you want to prevent this from happening in the future.

Link to comment

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated already in this thread, that it is not official policy - a NA log was posted on a cache that was mentioned (GC1VZ85). That log was deleted. What did the Groundspeak rep who showed up here do? Anything?

Edited by veit
Link to comment

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated already in this thread, that it is not official policy - a NA log was posted on a cache that was mentioned. `That log was deleted. What did the Groundspeak rep who showed up here do? Anything?

 

I got to be honest here, this looks more like a cacher or group of cachers who wants to negate any personal responsibility and push blame elsewhere. You stated in the OP that your intention was to prevent this from happening going forward yet unless GS makes some sort of statement, you state it is not important enough for you to be willing to do the right thing and post a NA log on a cache that is placed illegally or possibly in a dangerous manner.

 

So it begs the question, what was this thread really about?

 

edit: further > forward

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

So. It seems to boil down to the fact that the geocacher in question did something stupid. So everyone else should be blamed?

Yes. This one seems to have been placed in violation of the guidelines. But that does not change the fact that the geocacher was not paying attention. Or did not turn around and take a DNF when he realized that it was not an acceptable place for a cache.

True. If this cache had been archived, this accident would not have occurred. That is irrelevant to the problem of people not using common sense.

Not my fault. Blame someone else.

Link to comment

Ok, after thinking about this for a while, I have to admit that the issue of caches placed illegally (without permission) does seem relevant in this context. I haven't done that many of them (from recollection only 3), so I really don't feel that qualified to talk about it. But you might be right in that they are probably inherently more dangerous than other caches. So archiving all of them might be a way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

 

If this is the general consensus or official policy of Groundspeak, please lobby them to archive all caches that include the words "Lost Place" or "LP" in one swoop. All they have to do is run a database query and archive them (and then reactivate those where it's shown that the owner has permission to place those caches). Purely for business reasons, I don't think that this is going to happen, because there would be a huge backlash from the community over here, thousands of caches and cachers would probably migrate to other listing platforms. And I don't think Groundspeak wants to lose that many paying customers. But I might be wrong. If this becomes official policy, I will certainly do my part and post NA logs on caches placed illegally that slipped through the net.

 

Personally, I don't like this solution - I think with proper warnings caches in Lost Places can be done relatively risk free. And even if this was to happen, I still want a way to be able to warn other cachers of dangers in a more efficient way than is currently possilbe.

 

So essentially you do not want to address the problems that led up to this accident. You do not want to take any ownership in the community that created this problem. You want there to be some solution that will condone and allow the placement of illegal caches.

 

Frankly, unless there is some community push back in your geocaching caching community about these caches it is a completely moot point to discuss it here. This person died doing a cache that did not meet posting guidelines because how many people (30 I think) were too scared to post an NA log that is no one's fault but the hider, the finder and the community of cachers that allowed this to happen.

 

Take some ownership for the problem that has been created there and take some steps to change the behavior in your community and we won't have to have this discussion ever again probably.

 

That is the crux of the problem. From the beginning of the thread it's been about figuring out how someone else can fix the problem when in reality, the community failed this guy. The community knew that the cache did not meet the guidelines. The CO knew the cache did not meet the guidelines. The victim knew the cache did not meet the guidelines.

 

But it seems everyone was more concerned about skirting the guidelines because it added to the enjoyment.

 

If this becomes official policy, I will certainly do my part and post NA logs on caches placed illegally that slipped through the net.

 

It has always been official policy that caches must have adequate permission. Since you are aware of several caches that do not have adequate permission, I expect to see either some NA logs forthcoming from you or some private emails to your local reviewers notifying them of those caches.

Link to comment

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated already in this thread, that it is not official policy - a NA log was posted on a cache that was mentioned (GC1VZ85). That log was deleted. What did the Groundspeak rep who showed up here do? Anything?

 

It IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN official policy.

 

If the local reviewers are ignoring those NA logs where it is evident that the cache is placed illegally, then I suggest an email to contact@geocaching.com to notify TPTB that they need to address this issue. Perhaps Groundspeak needs to re-evaluate their German reviewers.

Link to comment

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated already in this thread, that it is not official policy - a NA log was posted on a cache that was mentioned (GC1VZ85). That log was deleted. What did the Groundspeak rep who showed up here do? Anything?

 

And a NA log still exists from 10/26/09. it mentions private property and life threatening as it's reasons for the NA! And guess what??? Nothing happened except that person was ridiculed.

 

So yeah, NA logs are realllllly working out over there, huh?

Link to comment

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated already in this thread, that it is not official policy - a NA log was posted on a cache that was mentioned (GC1VZ85). That log was deleted. What did the Groundspeak rep who showed up here do? Anything?

 

And a NA log still exists from 10/26/09. it mentions private property and life threatening as it's reasons for the NA! And guess what??? Nothing happened except that person was ridiculed.

 

So yeah, NA logs are realllllly working out over there, huh?

 

has anyone taken the next step and written to contact@geocaching.com? Maybe the OP could take the lead on this one.

Link to comment

baloo.. I've often thought of similar situations where I would like to contact GS.

Lets talk about this situation in particular. Is it my place to contact them about this illegal cache in Germany? Will I be labeled a troublemaker? Is this none of my business?

 

And that's how I feel, and I'm a troublemaker at heart. So how do regular people feel in situations like this?

 

Do we start scaling our own community in search of caches which may be illegally placed and start documenting NA logs? Should I attempt to find them first?

Seriously, these are honest questions...

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

 

All three of these logs would be more meaningful to me than "Thanks for the cache" or "quick find" or "great fun" etc. I think we should put enough trust in the community that over time we'd learn how to use these Warning logs.

 

All three of them could be posted in a Found It log, a DNF log, or a note log.

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

I don't think that this will be the case. But lets say it does become this way...then the CO can delete these logs. Again, this is the part where people can banter back and forth about this and that. But we can work on that. Just get the info that finders in the field are seeing, and get it out there for others to see.

the CO.

 

Deleting a warning log could be sticky if it's a valid warning. It could open the CO up to liability. Only the person who placed the warning should be allowed to delete it. For those that know occupational safety, think lockout/tagout. The spirit of that industry standard applies here.

 

It could also open the cache owner up to liability, should somebody post a Danger log, the cache owner doesn't archive the cache, and then somebody does get hurt doing the cache.

Link to comment

and we call them accidents for a reason.

 

Yes, but in this case it was very preventable. :mellow:

 

There appears to be a broken spoke in the geocaching cultural wheel in regards to this fatality. Some of us are interested in exploring and discussing ways to prevent another tragic geocaching fatality.

 

I think the broken spoke is nothing more than trying to avoid one more Nanny Law in our lives.

Link to comment

baloo.. I've often thought of similar situations where I would like to contact GS.

Lets talk about this situation in particular. Is it my place to contact them about this illegal cache in Germany? Will I be labeled a troublemaker? Is this none of my business?

 

And that's how I feel, and I'm a troublemaker at heart. So how do regular people feel in situations like this?

 

Do we start scaling our own community in search of caches which may be illegally placed and start documenting NA logs? Should I attempt to find them first?

Seriously, these are honest questions...

 

I said this to the OP (Veit), however to address your question;

 

In the case of what is being discussed here, I guess it would be appropriate for anyone in this thread to contact them since it has been brought to everyone's attention and the locals seem more worried about their stature in the community then someone's safety.

 

In the big scheme of things, no, I do not think we should become self-appointed reviewers and go looking from the comfort of our computer screens. For the most part, the reviewer system appears to work just fine. If what is being portrayed in this thread is true, it seems to be broken in one specific area.

 

I do however believe that if we come across a cache that has issues, especially safety, legal and property concerns, we should at the very least post a NM. If that is not effective or the concern is immediate, go the NA route and then up the ladder. On only one occasion, a CO in Texas, have I seen an NA "apparently" ignored, and this appeared to be an isolated instance. I went straight to the NA when a property owner practically did everything to me short of physically beating me when I went to look for a cache. The CO said both I and the property owner were over-reacting. They got over it, so will everyone else.

 

As I see it we have basically 3 choices. The first, and one I think GS prefers, is that we are self policing and use some sense in our actions. The second is that GS gets involved and regulates it to the point that they spend their entire day working this one issue. The third is that municipalities will get involved.

 

#1 is a no brainer. Number 2 shouldn't happen since GS is a listing service and really have no responsibility to and, I would think, no desire to get involved to that level. (I also think there may be some legal issues that would arise) and #3, well, I can't see that ever being a good thing as it has rarely turned out well to this point.

Link to comment

So. It seems to boil down to the fact that the geocacher in question did something stupid. So everyone else should be blamed?

Yes. This one seems to have been placed in violation of the guidelines. But that does not change the fact that the geocacher was not paying attention. Or did not turn around and take a DNF when he realized that it was not an acceptable place for a cache.

True. If this cache had been archived, this accident would not have occurred. That is irrelevant to the problem of people not using common sense.

Not my fault. Blame someone else.

We don't know what actually happend to the poor guy, but saying he did something stupid is not very appropriate since he can't be here to defend himself. People keep mentioning that people have to be responsible for their own actions. I guess to them, dying is the ultimate in being responsible, but more importantly, who has been trying to shirk their responsibility? Certainly not "the geocacher in question".

 

Common sense is only common when people share the same set of assumptions, so what might seem important to you or me could easily be seen as irrelevant to someone else. As for blame, there is plenty. Why should it not be meted out appropriately?

Link to comment
Ok, I see two very different trains of thought emerging here:

 

1. "Illegal caches should not exist, they should be archived."

2. "Cachers should be able to warn others of dangers."

 

I see a lot more than two, but since you are committed to turning a blind eye on any idea that does not support your agenda, I suppose your lack of vision in this matter is not very surprising. To address the two trains of thought your bias does allow you to see:

 

1. Illegal caches should be archived. Period. This is not even subject to debate. Yet even you seem to bristle at that notion, which makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. If your caching community does not currently support the idea that illegal caches should be archived, then it is time to change the hearts and minds of your community. With your ability to spout hyperbole, this should be a fairly easy task for you. You even have a poster child tragedy you can use to highlight your cause. If your Reviewers do not support the notion that illegal caches should be archived, it's time to replace those Reviewers. Groundspeak offers you tools to accomplish this.

 

2. I agree. Cachers should be able to warn others of dangers. Cache seekers have had this ability through the judicious use of their cache logs since Dave Ulmer hid the very first one. Cache owners have had this ability through judicious use of the cache description since that same time. Over the years, Groundspeak has added even more tools, such as D/T ratings and attributes, not to mention N/A log types, all of which can be utilized by both the hider and the seekers of any cache, to express the potential dangers at ground zero. There has never been a time, in the entire history of this website, where cachers did not have the ability to warn others of dangers.

 

However, throughout the entire history of this website, there have been people who either dismissed the available data, or refused to even avail themselves of the available data. Adding more warnings will not change either of those mindsets. Nor, will it change those folks who already pay attention to their surroundings when caching in potentially hazardous areas.

 

Cezanne already described that caches in places that one shouldnt officially go are a big part of the game, at least here in Germany. My feeling is that there would be an enormous backlash against any attempts to archive all such caches. However, since you seem so sure that this is the way to go, and the current process works, please go ahead and get all those illegal caches archived. Cezanne already posted the first link, there are thousands more.

Are you sure this isn't more hype? When I see the word "thousand" in its plural form, I assume you mean that there are at a minimum, 2000 caches in Germany, which are in areas that are illegal for the general public to access. How many total caches are in Germany? 10,000? More? Less? I'd like to get an understanding of what percentage of the total these 2000 illegal caches represent.

 

I'm not certain why you are so adamantly opposed to addressing the illegal placement of geocaches. I personally have a tough time advocating armchair N/A logs. I believe that any N/A log should come from someone with recent, first hand experience at ground zero. I guess that makes it tough for me to grasp how you, a cacher with less than 500 finds, can say with any degree of certainty that at least 2000 caches in Germany are located at a spot where it is illegal for you to go. But in the interest of furthering this discussion, I will take your word for that fact, and assume that you do know, from first hand experience, of at least 2000 illegal caches in your country. Why then would you want someone who lives on the other side of the globe to address this? Why are you not beating this drum for yourself? Had the cache which started all this discussion been archived after the first find, or better yet, never published because it violated the guidelines, it is quite possible that Willi would still be alive today. Your refusal to address this very real and very basic issue forces me to call your motives into question. When you are unwilling to take such a simple step to possibly save a life, how can we take your rather complex and convoluted scheme seriously?

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

I don't think that this will be the case. But lets say it does become this way...then the CO can delete these logs. Again, this is the part where people can banter back and forth about this and that. But we can work on that. Just get the info that finders in the field are seeing, and get it out there for others to see.

the CO.

 

Deleting a warning log could be sticky if it's a valid warning. It could open the CO up to liability. Only the person who placed the warning should be allowed to delete it. For those that know occupational safety, think lockout/tagout. The spirit of that industry standard applies here.

 

wth does "occupational safety" have to do with geocaching? its not a job people, its a hobby, you don't have to get any cache to earn a living

 

and NO, CO is not liable for anything...just because he placed a cache without exercising any common sense and breaking the law does not say anyone should follow in his/her footsteps

 

stop trying to find a scapegoat and take responsibility for your own actions, its why we have a brain...to think and make decisions for ourselves

Link to comment

The closest I have come to dying in the last five years (aside from near-misses while driving) was at a cache in PA in deep snow. In the summer it would be perfectly safe. The cache is about 20' downhill from the trail in the hollow of a tree which is right on the edge of a 20' vertical bluff over a lake. Summertime, no problem, the worst that would happen if you were to slip over the bluff is you would get wet and have to swim a bit to get to shallow water to climb out.

 

In the snow, however, it was a completely different matter. The slope from trail to tree was fairly steep, maybe a 10' down-slope over the 20' from trail to tree. The lake was frozen over. Slide down the hill, miss grabbing the tree and you fall through the ice. Mostly, you're dead. If you are lucky enough to surface through the hole you made falling in then you can't get up the bluff and you can't swim anywhere... you are stuck in that hole in the ice until rescued or dead.

 

All of this was obvious from the trail. One look at where the GPS was pointing told me that getting this could be very dangerous. The cache listing rated it, if I recall correctly, a 2.5/4. Nevertheless I laid down my crutches and slid down the hill on my fanny, wrapping my arms around the tree to stop my slide. No problem. Nabbed the cache, signed for myself and my companion (who had enough sense to stay on the trail) and it's time to climb back up to the trail. I'm a 300lb one-legged old fart, so I push myself on my fanny with both hands and one foot up the hill... and slide right back down. Oops. Grab the tree.

 

It took about two seconds to realize that I was in deep doo-doo. Firstly, we'd been driving around in a heated car finding fast easy caches so I was dressed for short jaunts from the car - jeans and a t-shirt. In 15° weather. Then, being from the South and not used to snow I thought the ground under it would be frozen and hard. Wrong. It was soft mud, covered with pine straw, covered with snow, and slick as owl manure. Try to slide up the hill grabbing small shrubs, make a few feet progress, it pulls out of the ground and I slide right back down. Hug the tree.

 

There's nothing my partner up on the trail can do, nothing in the car to throw down for me to climb up. If there was a tree branch she could lower to me it would just result in my pulling her off the trail and we'd both be in trouble, and we're way out in a forest far from a town and rescuers. This sux. Man it's cold. My hands aren't working so good anymore. Dig my fingers into the mud, get my heel dug in. Push up the hill. Slide right back down. Love the tree.

 

Finally I have my companion find and toss me a tree branch which I broke into foot-long sections which I was able to drive into the ground and fashion pegs which I used like a ladder to get myself up that hill.

 

My God that car heater felt good.

 

As I thawed out I thought what a stupid pointless dangerous act that was. I swore to never dismiss danger when approaching a cache again. I was lucky.

 

Now, would a 'This One Is Dangerous' attribute have stopped me from going down that hill? No. It was already rated a 4 terrain. One look at the site told me all that I needed to know - it's a snow-covered slope to a bluff over a frozen lake... that tells you all you need to know, and no attribute or warning would make any difference once you've seen that situation.

 

I made the decision to take the risk. It almost killed me.

 

Should Groundspeak be liable for my stupid risk-taking? Should the cache owner? Should the cache be disabled during the winter? Should caches in places like this be banned? Should this cache be archived if I had killed my idiot self attempting it?

 

Of course not. I looked at the situation and I made the decision to go for it.

 

I'm sorry the fellow in the OP died, but it was an accident that could only have been avoided by his thinking "I don't think that looks safe for me".

 

We live or die by our decisions.

Link to comment

I guess to them, dying is the ultimate in being responsible

 

Actually, it is.

 

Not saying that is the case here. We don't know exactly what happened.

 

But if someone were driving 100mph down a mountain road and skidded over the side, would you not say his death was the ultimate in being responsible?

 

What about a hiker who packs everything he needs for an overnight hike but gets his foot caught in a hole and breaks his ankle while hiking in 10 degree weather? Wouldn't you say if he died as a result that it would be the ultimate in being responsible?

 

The fact that someone died does not factor into whether or not he was responsible for his death. His actions leading up to his death would indicate whether or not he was responsible. We don't know much about this incident other than he was likely in a location where there is a good indication he knew he should not be. To that extent, yes, he holds a great deal of responsibility even though he is the unfortunate victim.

Link to comment
I think with proper warnings caches in Lost Places can be done relatively risk free.

 

If you could be (especially if you very likely would be) charged with trespassing for being at a location or on a property then a geocache (listed on this site or any other) should NOT be there unless the CO has explicit permission from the property owner and this permission should be stated clearly on the cache page.

 

And a NA log still exists from 10/26/09. it mentions private property and life threatening as it's reasons for the NA! And guess what??? Nothing happened except that person was ridiculed.

 

So yeah, NA logs are realllllly working out over there, huh?

 

Do we need German-speaking non-German citizens to be Reviewers in Germany? Is the community there rotten all the way up through the Reviewers who are knowingly publishing caches that violate Guidelines? Serious question.

 

Do we start scaling our own community in search of caches which may be illegally placed and start documenting NA logs? Should I attempt to find them first?

 

Seriously, these are honest questions...

 

Personally, I don't go searching listings for caches that are guideline violators. Attempting the search on the ground also tends to give you a better perspective which the Reviewer may not have. It also allows you to get photographic proof of signage or other issues, which trumps any "my word against yours" issues. If in the course of normal searching I find something "wrong" I will put the information in the hands of a Reviewer. I've gotten a few caches archived because of this.

Link to comment
I have done "illegal caches" myself and enjoyed them, "Lost Places" are HUGELY popular here, and some of the most interesting caches. I havent done many of them, and I don't feel qualified enough to discuss whether they should exist or not

Well that certainly supports my theory that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. As to your qualification, I see from your profile that you have hidden a cache. This tells me that you have read the cache listing guidelines, which means you are certainly qualified to discuss if illegal hides should exist.

 

Unless, of course, you lied when you checked that little box claiming you read the guidelines.

 

I could have saved a life today

but chose to look the other way.

Veit, you really should read that somewhat sappy poem.

You could save a life by addressing illegal caches.

But you choose to look the other way.

Just sayin'...

 

and we call them accidents for a reason.

Yes, but in this case it was very preventable.

Agreed. If we operate under the assumption that Willi fell through the aforementioned hole in the walkway, then him looking down, while applying proper illumination, prior to moving his foot forward, would probably have prevented it. We know Willi had a flashlight. We don't know if he used it.

 

But ask yourself this, if there were an upfront and active safety culture such as exists in scuba or skydiving, or shooting sports, or technical climbing, or spelunking, etc. would he have died on that hike?

As a range instructor, I can verify that there is a very strong belief in safety in the gun owning community. Yet there are still people getting killed because of poor decisions made whilst utilizing firearms. I would argue that this hobby does have fairly strong ties to safety and personal assessment, (with the possible exception of Germany, where, apparently, the community thinks it's OK to go places where it is inherently unsafe, and illegal), and yet, there are still occasions where cachers die.

 

Darwin never sleeps.

 

Now what is Groundspeak doing to help prevent anything similar from happening again?

I suppose a better question would be; What are the locals doing to help prevent cachers from getting killed while attempting caches that are placed in areas where it is both illegal and unsafe to access? From your earlier responses, my guess would be, "Nothing", as you would rather sit back and blame the corporation, rather than help fix the problem of illegal caches.

Link to comment

Not sure what 'legal' questions have to do with this topic other than to derail it. Placement permission or the lack thereof has zero bearing on safety or on a cacher's risk-taking decisions.

 

I beg to differ with you.

 

A lot of off-limits/illegal locations are off-limits due to safety concerns. If you ignore this while either hiding OR finding a cache, it can have a lot of bearing on your safety.

Link to comment

One look at the site told me all that I needed to know - it's a snow-covered slope to a bluff over a frozen lake... that tells you all you need to know, and no attribute or warning would make any difference once you've seen that situation.

How about this: "WARNING. The ground under the snow is NOT necessarily frozen and hard. It might be soft mud, covered with pine straw, covered with snow, and slick as owl manure."

 

Not all hazards are obvious to all people.

Link to comment

Darwin never sleeps.

Darwin... Meh.

 

It is my paid duty to thwart Darwinism so stupid people** can live longer lives and breed more stupid people. :rolleyes:

 

It stands to reason, what with all the training so fresh in my mind, that I would try to apply it in my favorite sport/hobby/activity/social network. The concepts apply. The industry standards don't for the most part. :laughing:

 

**By stupid people I mean contractors. Lord knows the folks I work with are a very smart bunch. :anibad:

Link to comment

It goes beyond "permission" or lack of. It was not a legal place for the public to be in the first place. I suppose if it was in a remote spot, and it could be done during the day, and there wasn't a large gaping hole in the catwalk it would not cause too many problems being in a unauthorized area. However, it is sheer stupidity to list something like that.

 

-Illegal access

-It had to be done at night, as so not to be spotted

-A large hole in the walkway

 

I suppose that because of the "slippery slope", caches are not looked at to see if they are dangerous. But it is impossible to avoid the slippery slope. There must be some common sense used. If it is illegal that should be enough. But being illegal, as well as dangerous even if the hole was not there ? It appears that Groundspeak has slid on the very slippery slope they were trying to avoid.

 

What exactly do the German reviewers check for? If the cache is 490 feet from another one they won't publish it, but if it requires illegal access and to be done at night, as well having a giant hole in the walkway, then it is okay? :blink:

 

A kid is dead because nobody noticed that they were doing something that was illegal, or had the guts to stand up and say something about it. He just did what everyone else in the community thought was ok.

Link to comment

Not sure what 'legal' questions have to do with this topic other than to derail it. Placement permission or the lack thereof has zero bearing on safety or on a cacher's risk-taking decisions.

 

I beg to differ with you.

 

A lot of off-limits/illegal locations are off-limits due to safety concerns. If you ignore this while either hiding OR finding a cache, it can have a lot of bearing on your safety.

 

Doing something you know is illegal has a great deal of bearing on how you react. Doing it at night as not to be seen, would also invite a disaster, especially without a walkway below you. Performing illegal activity goes a step further than simply not having permission.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Ok, after thinking about this for a while, I have to admit that the issue of caches placed illegally (without permission) does seem relevant in this context. I haven't done that many of them (from recollection only 3), so I really don't feel that qualified to talk about it. But you might be right in that they are probably inherently more dangerous than other caches. So archiving all of them might be a way to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.

 

If this is the general consensus or official policy of Groundspeak, please lobby them to archive all caches that include the words "Lost Place" or "LP" in one swoop. All they have to do is run a database query and archive them (and then reactivate those where it's shown that the owner has permission to place those caches). Purely for business reasons, I don't think that this is going to happen, because there would be a huge backlash from the community over here, thousands of caches and cachers would probably migrate to other listing platforms. And I don't think Groundspeak wants to lose that many paying customers. But I might be wrong. If this becomes official policy, I will certainly do my part and post NA logs on caches placed illegally that slipped through the net.

 

Personally, I don't like this solution - I think with proper warnings caches in Lost Places can be done relatively risk free. And even if this was to happen, I still want a way to be able to warn other cachers of dangers in a more efficient way than is currently possilbe.

 

So essentially you do not want to address the problems that led up to this accident. You do not want to take any ownership in the community that created this problem. You want there to be some solution that will condone and allow the placement of illegal caches.

 

Frankly, unless there is some community push back in your geocaching caching community about these caches it is a completely moot point to discuss it here. This person died doing a cache that did not meet posting guidelines because how many people (30 I think) were too scared to post an NA log that is no one's fault but the hider, the finder and the community of cachers that allowed this to happen.

 

Take some ownership for the problem that has been created there and take some steps to change the behavior in your community and we won't have to have this discussion ever again probably.

 

Perhaps it is the community that is at fault. Assuming that the cache in question was obviously placed in an area that violated the guidelines it should have been reported. Instead the community was more concerned about their smiley count rather than doing what was right. I've seen many instances of this, where dozens of

cachers found obviously "illegal" caches before one was responsible enough to report it.

 

GC.com is a listing service. Their business is listing geocaches for us to find. They comply with local gocaching laws where there are known restrictions. The reviewers work with that model. Unless the reviewers know specifically that there are restrictions in a certain location they will publish it.

 

Assuming that this cache was in an off limits area, if anybody has blood on their hands in this case perhaps it is those who found what was apparently an illegal cache and did not report it. Too many cachers are so set on getting another smiley that they are willing to look the other way when they encounter a cache that does not comply with the guidelines.

Link to comment

I went ahead and posted a NA log for this cache in Austria, and I think my log stood for about 2-3 hrs:

 

Your log entry for the listing Airlebnis Murpark (Traditional Cache) was deleted by Team Cachehunter at Tuesday, 20 December 2011 21:52:14

 

Visit this listing at the below address:

http://coord.info/GL745NYG

Profile for Team Cachehunter:

http://coord.info/PR33BQ8

Edited by JesandTodd
Link to comment

Not sure what 'legal' questions have to do with this topic other than to derail it. Placement permission or the lack thereof has zero bearing on safety or on a cacher's risk-taking decisions.

 

I beg to differ with you.

 

A lot of off-limits/illegal locations are off-limits due to safety concerns. If you ignore this while either hiding OR finding a cache, it can have a lot of bearing on your safety.

I see it a third way. I agree with TAR that legal has little to do with determining whether a cache is safe or on what safety precautions one should take if they decide to attempt the cache. However I see the following: we may believe that the cache hider had adequate permission when placing the cache. If one sees a hazardous situation at a cache like this though, that may be enough to question if the hider really has adequate permission. I would not immediately start putting Needs Archive on all of the Lost Places caches in Germany. But if there are people putting warnings in their logs about missing grates, lack of handrails, or the like; I might begin to wonder what the CO was thinking and whether or not they had adequate permission. I imagine that reviewers could consider this in evaluating a Needs Archive log as well.

Link to comment

I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated already in this thread, that it is not official policy - a NA log was posted on a cache that was mentioned (GC1VZ85). That log was deleted. What did the Groundspeak rep who showed up here do? Anything?

 

It IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN official policy.

 

If the local reviewers are ignoring those NA logs where it is evident that the cache is placed illegally, then I suggest an email to contact@geocaching.com to notify TPTB that they need to address this issue. Perhaps Groundspeak needs to re-evaluate their German reviewers.

 

Just to correct a minor issue: The cache that has been mentioned is located in Austria and many, many miles from Pirna.

 

There are many hundreds of problem caches. The one I dared to mention was just an example where a NA log did not receive any attention. I mentioned the cache for that very reason as in this thread it has been suggested that by logging NA on caches like the one where Willi died his death while caching could have been avoided which I do not think to be true. (BTW: Attacks for having mentioned the cache here have already started.)

 

The NA log back then was not even deleted, but was just not taken for serious as it was coming from a local and not from someone abroad. NA logs from someone who has not been at the cache location and even more who come from someone from abroad are even more frowned upon.

 

I know that one can contact Groundspeak, but my general experience is that trying to intervene in reviewers' jobs is not the best someone can do who does not want to be assigned the role of the bad guy in the local communities. Of course on could fight that a single cache is disappearing, but that's a lot of work for just a cache out of thousands as many countries and regions are effected.

Moreover, asking for explicit permission will be the death of geocaching in these areas, not because of caches like the referred one, but just because there are no systems for getting permissions for caches in forests, on mountains etc.

 

Personally, I think that the communities need to change their opinion. As long as large parts of the community welcome certain cache types, the reviewers are in a very bad position, in particular if they review under their geocaching aliases and are part of the community themselves. For no wage in the world, I would want to act as reviewer in most of Europe (and they receive no money at all).

They really have a hard job and acting against the will of the community will put them in an even worse situation.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

It is a sad story...however a safety warning really is not needed. How many times have each of us parked road side for a cache? That is extremely dangerous even when you park safely. You are at risk beyond your control for drunk drivers, driver texting/using cell phone or drivers just not paying attention. A safety warning would be needed for a large % of caches in similar conditions, so it would really would be meaningless. As others have posted, safety is up to each of us to exercise in our own comfort zone. This weekend I completed my first 5/5 cache which required a belly crawl into a cave for a cache (Caveman GC3197F). My best caching experience to date. Some won't do the cache, which I understand. It's simply just up to each of us to decide, if to seek, when to stop seeking, where to park, etc. etc.

 

The fact is more people will be injured for various reasons related to geocaching, simply based on the number of players. All each of us can do is to try to minimize the probability by working in our own comfort zone, and hopefully using common sense.

 

As Dirty Harry says, "A man got's to know his limitations"

Edited by Russ!
Link to comment

Not sure what 'legal' questions have to do with this topic other than to derail it. Placement permission or the lack thereof has zero bearing on safety or on a cacher's risk-taking decisions.

 

Sometimes it might have as locations where one is supposed to go are typically checked by the owner from time and time and access is forbidden in situations where an issue has been detected. The key point is not missing placement permission, but missing permission to visit the location. Climbing up the bridge is not allowed regardless of why someone is going there. So of course, there are no warning signs before the gap etc

 

Moreover, I am sure that it makes a huge difference for government authorities and property owners if a cacher died at a location where access is allowed or where it is not allowed. I agree, however, with you that this aspect is not connected to safety issues.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

Cezanne already described that caches in places that one shouldnt officially go are a big part of the game, at least here in Germany. My feeling is that there would be an enormous backlash against any attempts to archive all such caches. However, since you seem so sure that this is the way to go, and the current process works, please go ahead and get all those illegal caches archived. Cezanne already posted the first link, there are thousands more.

Are you sure this isn't more hype? When I see the word "thousand" in its plural form, I assume you mean that there are at a minimum, 2000 caches in Germany, which are in areas that are illegal for the general public to access. How many total caches are in Germany?

10,000? More? Less? I'd like to get an understanding of what percentage of the total these 2000 illegal caches represent.

 

There are more than 223000 active caches in Germany and the same problem arises in several neighbouring countries.

 

I'm not certain why you are so adamantly opposed to addressing the illegal placement of geocaches. I personally have a tough time advocating armchair N/A logs. I believe that any N/A log should come from someone with recent, first hand experience at ground zero.

 

I agree, but most local cachers do not want to get involved in nasty personal attacks. Moreover, if I have to go to GZ this means than I also would to climb up e.g. the bridge and search for the cache and then post a N/A log thereafter. Proceeding like this is not a good idea either. I do not think that the motivation for those cachers who decide for themselves that a certain cache is certainly nothing for them to visit the location is very high. For example, I of course know the shopping mall and the metal object where the cache I mentioned is placed, but I never took the time to go to GZ (I only passed several times nearby by car and by bicycle) as it was clear to me beforehand that I would never in the world want to do this cache. Those who left because they felt the task to be too dangerous did probably not dare to write a N/A log as N/A logs except for missing caches are not part of the local culture.

 

I guess that makes it tough for me to grasp how you, a cacher with less than 500 finds, can say with any degree of certainty that at least 2000 caches in Germany are located at a spot where it is illegal for you to go.

 

He easily can. Even I can do it without living in Germany. This is not a secret at all, but well known in the community in Europe.

It is not a specific German issue, but concerns several countries.

 

But in the interest of furthering this discussion, I will take your word for that fact, and assume that you do know, from first hand experience, of at least 2000 illegal caches in your country. Why then would you want someone who lives on the other side of the globe to address this?

 

I do not think that he wanted someone from the other side of the globe to address this. Note that veit did not come up with the illegal aspect of the cache. He just was shocked about what happened and wanted to start reflecting about what could be done to reduce the risk for similar incidents in the future. I guess when veit chose this part of the forum he was not aware of the fact that mainly people from North America will reply - note that he is not a regular user of this forum. (I still wonder why this forum is hardly used by non native speakers of English as it could be a nice platform for exchanging experiences from different countries and Englist is the only language allowing us to communicate with people with many different native languages.) I guess veit among others wanted to avoid getting involved in the typical emotional type of discussion in German speaking forums on such topics.

 

Why are you not beating this drum for yourself? Had the cache which started all this discussion been archived after the first find, or better yet, never published because it violated the guidelines, it is quite possible that Willi would still be alive today.

 

He might as well have died at another cache location where one is allowed to go or in car accident or whatever. I think we humans cannot change individual fate anyway. I do not think that the scapegoat approach is a good idea regardless of who is blamed.

However, as the number of cachers is increasing so dramatically in some parts of Europe and is really arriving in mainstream, more and more accidents will happen if nothing happens. A 21 year old is old enough to estimate the risks, but what about a 12 year old who navigates just to the next available cache on his smartphone. It is this kind of situation I am particularly worried about and mentioning Darwin or the responsability of the parents do not leave me in comfort.

 

Your refusal to address this very real and very basic issue forces me to call your motives into question. When you are unwilling to take such a simple step to possibly save a life, how can we take your rather complex and convoluted scheme seriously?

 

I think that what veit has in mind will help those who read warnings and end up in dangers they did not expect. It will not make any change for those who ignore warnings or do not look at them at all.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I mentioned the cache for that very reason as in this thread it has been suggested that by logging NA on caches like the one where Willi died his death while caching could have been avoided which I do not think to be true.

Maybe so, but was it not a cache that lured Willi onto that bridge? Would he have been on that structure, at night, by himself, if not for the cache?

 

Moreover, asking for explicit permission will be the death of geocaching in these areas, not because of caches like the referred one, but just because there are no systems for getting permissions for caches in forests, on mountains etc.

 

Personally, I think that the communities need to change their opinion. As long as large parts of the community welcome certain cache types, the reviewers are in a very bad position, in particular if they review under their geocaching aliases and are part of the community themselves. For no wage in the world, I would want to act as reviewer in most of Europe (and they receive no money at all).

They really have a hard job and acting against the will of the community will put them in an even worse situation.

Placing caches in locations were they do not belong has always been a problem. It just gets worse as more people participate. The negative attention that arises from bomb scares, irresponsible behavior and now fatalities, will inexorably lead us to explicit permission requirements or even banishment. The problem is not going to solve itself, but there is no leadership.

Link to comment

I mentioned the cache for that very reason as in this thread it has been suggested that by logging NA on caches like the one where Willi died his death while caching could have been avoided which I do not think to be true.

Maybe so, but was it not a cache that lured Willi onto that bridge? Would he have been on that structure, at night, by himself, if not for the cache?

 

Of course no one can answer this question for Willi and an answer to it would not help anyone. The hiders of the cache have been at the location without a cache and yes very probably when it was dark as dancing classes typically take place in the evening. If there is a ladder around, many young people are tempted to explore the area. That happened long before geocaching and will happen also thereafter. What's different is however that the motivation to go there is a different one and that also people who would not visit such locations without a cache are going there with a cache being there. Another difference is of course the effect that accidents do have. If there is no geocaching connection, the property owner probably will have to take care that this special place is better secured while in case of geocaching several such incidents might lead to serious legal restrictions put on geocaching.

 

Placing caches in locations were they do not belong has always been a problem. It just gets worse as more people participate. The negative attention that arises from bomb scares, irresponsible behavior and now fatalities, will inexorably lead us to explicit permission requirements or even banishment. The problem is not going to solve itself, but there is no leadership.

 

I agree, but I was refererring to the situation that in most European countries there hardly exist ways to place caches with permission even if it concerns places where geocaches do not pose an issue. So in essence the vast majority of geocaches are not really legal as leaving caches is leaving trash in terms of the existing laws. This situation puts those who ask for the removal of caches at locations which one is not supposed to visit, in a somehow weak position. There is no lobby for geocachers, in contrast to e.g. hikers. mountain-bikers etc

It has been a very hard fight in some countries where something like a public right of the way exists in forest areas. It's nothing hunters, property owners etc are happy to offer to the public - many of them are rather trying whatever they can do to find ways to circumvent this right. Being asked for permissions for placing caches, many of them would react very negatively just as a matter of principle as they are already not happy with having to allow people to walk on their ground. On the other hand, the bad behaviour of some geocachers might also endager rights other groups have fighted for. Geocaches in illegal locations are only one of many problems geocaching in some European countries will have to face in the years to come. Troubles with respect to environmental issues and many others will probably have an even bigger impact on how geocaching will be in 10-15 years if it is able to survive until then.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

After sleeping on this for a night a few thoughts:

 

- I do not appreciate the personal attacks. I came here to start a discussion what can be done to avoid something like this from happening again on a global scale in the entire geocaching world. I don't like the fact that some here think I have to "prove" my motivation by posting NA logs on the small number of local caches that are placed in locations that aren't normally open to the public that I personally know. Especially after I already offered to do so once Groundspeak has demonstrated that this is what they think is right and started archiving them all.

- another reason I posted here is that the local community is in enormous grief right now, and I'm not prepared to add to this grief by posting NA logs on Lost Places right now, and start a great discussion about them here locally. My feeling is that this discussion will come, but I especially posted in the global forums to give local cachers time to grief the death while at the same time search for solutions.

- this thread has opened my eyes to the fact that archiving illegally placed caches might be one step of the solution, so thanks for that!

- I do not think it's the golden bullet though - it's a too simplistic view, in my view we need more improvements. The Warnings log I suggested is one that I feel can increase safety for cachers on a global scale. I hope more ideas will come and that the corporation behind this platform is listening carefully and starts implementing quickly.

Link to comment

 

- I do not appreciate the personal attacks. I came here to start a discussion what can be done to avoid something like this from happening again on a global scale in the entire geocaching world. I don't like the fact that some here think I have to "prove" my motivation by posting NA logs on the small number of local caches that are placed in locations that aren't normally open to the public that I personally know. Especially after I already offered to do so once Groundspeak has demonstrated that this is what they think is right and started archiving them all.

 

Do not take it personal. I think that it is very hard to understand the complex situation without having personal experiences with the involved local communities and the different countries. I do not agree with you on all points, but I guess I can pretty well understand why you came here and why you made your suggestion.

I do think that this thread has already brought up some promising ideas. I do not think that a single idea will solve a whole bunch of problems, but many small changes could make something much greater.

 

For example, I tend to like the idea of an anonymous manner to report problem caches. Of course such a report should not lead to an immediate reaction - every case needs to be looked into. Reviewers have the chance to act under their reviewer account - they are not forced to disclose their identiy. When logging N/A logs that should have a chance to be heard they should not come from sockpuppet accounts, but in some local communities there is a very large barrier to log N/A logs for certain popular caches. The barrier is even higher when knowing that some reviewers also belong to the group of fans of problematic caches. It's a bit like fighting again all powers.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...