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

[+cheech gang]

 

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

 

Wow. Whatever respect I previously had for what you were trying to do has now disappeared.

[+JesandTodd]

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Both things don't get to be.

 

Perfectly said.

[knowschad]

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

 

Wow. Whatever respect I previously had for what you were trying to do has now disappeared.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you 100%, but I'm pretty close.

[+Snoogans]

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

 

Wow. Whatever respect I previously had for what you were trying to do has now disappeared.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you 100%, but I'm pretty close.

 

@ viet

 

Dude are you sleep deprived? You sound like a crazy person or your profile has been hacked. Chill out... You ask for help and get some measure help and then you want to napalm the whole works with negative media attention...? For what? To enforce your ill concieved, sleep deprived agenda? I don't have words eloquent enough to tell you how wrong headed that idea is....

 

I would like to see a change in the geocaching safety culture too, but I would certainly like to distance myself from any agreement I had with you in the past. Sheesh.

 

Edited December 24, 2011 by Snoogans

[+B+L]

Come on people. Take some deep breaths.

[+HHD]

Sounds like someone is contemplating geocide...

[+SwineFlew]

Good night Thread, hope to see you in the morning.

[+Snoogans]

I trust Groundspeak will do what's right for them and their stewardship of their listing service, employees, volunteers, users, and customers. Whatever that may be.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is and up the safety info on my caches, talk to the group as a whole about geocaching safety at events I host and maybe even events I attend if wanted and allowed, and I'll encourage my local and regional geocaching forum owners and webmasters to create a geocaching safety forum on their websites. That much I can do. I've offered to help mod the Safety Forum I proposed here, but I suspect my posting history may be too polarizing to be considered as a mod. It makes no difference to me. I would just be happy to see Groundspeak endorsing a geocaching culture of safety.

 

What will you (the royal you) do?

 

My proposal for a Geocaching Safety Forum has gone before the board of the Texas Geocaching Association. I'm almost certain it will fly because they were already thinking in that direction.

 

I just got off the phone with the owner of the Houston Geocaching Society forum and we are going to discuss a Safety Forum in greater detail next week.

 

Again, what will you folks do?

[7rxc]

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

 

I've been watching this from day one, and contributed a bit of info for Snoogans list earlier.

Pardon me if I use the bolded part a bit out of context, I realize it was actually pointed at the archiving part.

 

Anyway, I thank you for attempting to tackle the greater issues locally, as it should be done, if possible.

Some things that pop up in my mind as possibilities. Since you say that some of these 'illegal' caches will be archived or have been, make sure that some other ones nearby take their place if possible. The proximity rules could be used to block the area of such other 'illegal' caches from being placed in the first place (at least listed on GC.com). This would not be an agressive action of course, and the whole gamut of 'legal' placements could be used for interest sake, even reasonably dangerous ones might be possible, but not too bad if you are dealing with local public spaces. On that note, I bet the local authorities are also a bit up tight about this. And it might be the time to seek easier access for more 'light and fun' caches on their properties legally to help with the blocking process... that they might be glad to do within some set of local rules for the process. Besides which there is the part about more smileys for some. At any rate they need to be briefed on what Geocaching can and should be when done by the established International Guidelines. In the same line of thinking, if you have local group websites or forums, this will be a good time to get a discussion of the Guidelines going, point by point discussion of each. No blame or quarreling allowed, discussion yes. One could follow the line of 'how did we let this get out of hand' or something like that. That would be up to the groups discussing it, much like you came seeking ideas, not a blame game.

 

Anyways, that is my current thinking, and also that as has been suggested, this is a good time to do it. I remember a series of skydiving fatalities many years back involving the canopy releases used for cutaway procedures... Everybody was clearly tired of there being nothing better but to use devices meant for ground activation to jettison parachutes in mid air. All the procedures were thought out well given the hardware, but it still snagged reserve chutes and pilot chutes with fatal results if one failed to execute it correctly. Point is, that many got together and talked it through and started to come up with slightly better ideas which led to first the R3 release system (still modified from the original releases) and then in quick order came the purpose built 3 Ring Circus used by most today... and even that is way better than the first versions. Point is that it takes time and discussion to get somewhere and is best when the creative juices are flowing.

 

Good luck

Doug 7rxc

[+GeoBain]

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I plan to do as I've always done. I will ask land owners for permission to place my caches. I will also include any information I feel is relevant to the listing.

 

I will not go out and begin evangelizing the masses as I do not see the same issues you see.

 

I may incorporate the phrase, "y'all be careful out there" into my farewells when speaking with other cachers.

 

Is that satisfactory?

[+briansnat]

I trust Groundspeak will do what's right for them and their stewardship of their listing service, employees, volunteers, users, and customers. Whatever that may be.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is and up the safety info on my caches, talk to the group as a whole about geocaching safety at events I host and maybe even events I attend if wanted and allowed, and I'll encourage my local and regional geocaching forum owners and webmasters to create a geocaching safety forum on their websites. That much I can do. I've offered to help mod the Safety Forum I proposed here, but I suspect my posting history may be too polarizing to be considered as a mod. It makes no difference to me. I would just be happy to see Groundspeak endorsing a geocaching culture of safety.

 

What will you (the royal you) do?

 

My proposal for a Geocaching Safety Forum has gone before the board of the Texas Geocaching Association. I'm almost certain it will fly because they were already thinking in that direction.

 

I just got off the phone with the owner of the Houston Geocaching Society forum and we are going to discuss a Safety Forum in greater detail next week.

 

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I promise to try to be careful when hunting caches and hope my fellow cachers will do the same.

[+Snoogans]

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I plan to do as I've always done. I will ask land owners for permission to place my caches. I will also include any information I feel is relevant to the listing.

 

I will not go out and begin evangelizing the masses as I do not see the same issues you see.

 

I may incorporate the phrase, "y'all be careful out there" into my farewells when speaking with other cachers.

 

Is that satisfactory?

Whatever floats ya man. You don't need my approval to do your own thang.

 

Ah derision. Gotta love it.

 

One thing they don't train safety professionals is how to have a thick hide. I have to thank this forum for that and I don't mean that in a bad way. Disagreement helps me refine my way of thinking. I appreciate dissenting viewpoints.

 

If my belief that we can save lives and major injuries by openly discussing ways to cache smarter and safer makes me look like an evangelical preacher to some, then so be it. I welcome the derision. It will only strengthen my resolve.

 

That's the sucky part of having a mostly intangible product (safety & security) though. When things are going great, no one says thanks, but let something happen that was bound to happen sooner or later.... I guess I do have that in common with a preacher.

 

Greater safety awareness in the geocaching context will save lives and injuries in the long term. I'm almost certain Groundspeak will officially endorse it in some way. (sooner or later) I doubt that it will in any way affect how you play your game if you're already playing within the guidelines and that folks will wonder why they resisted in the first place.

 

People will still be injured and occasionally die while geocaching, but the frequency and severity will be reduced in the long term and that's good for everyone that cares about geocaching.

[+BlueDeuce]

I trust Groundspeak will do what's right for them and their stewardship of their listing service, employees, volunteers, users, and customers. Whatever that may be.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is and up the safety info on my caches, talk to the group as a whole about geocaching safety at events I host and maybe even events I attend if wanted and allowed, and I'll encourage my local and regional geocaching forum owners and webmasters to create a geocaching safety forum on their websites. That much I can do. I've offered to help mod the Safety Forum I proposed here, but I suspect my posting history may be too polarizing to be considered as a mod. It makes no difference to me. I would just be happy to see Groundspeak endorsing a geocaching culture of safety.

 

What will you (the royal you) do?

 

My proposal for a Geocaching Safety Forum has gone before the board of the Texas Geocaching Association. I'm almost certain it will fly because they were already thinking in that direction.

 

I just got off the phone with the owner of the Houston Geocaching Society forum and we are going to discuss a Safety Forum in greater detail next week.

 

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I would be interested in participating. May I?

[+Snoogans]

I trust Groundspeak will do what's right for them and their stewardship of their listing service, employees, volunteers, users, and customers. Whatever that may be.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is and up the safety info on my caches, talk to the group as a whole about geocaching safety at events I host and maybe even events I attend if wanted and allowed, and I'll encourage my local and regional geocaching forum owners and webmasters to create a geocaching safety forum on their websites. That much I can do. I've offered to help mod the Safety Forum I proposed here, but I suspect my posting history may be too polarizing to be considered as a mod. It makes no difference to me. I would just be happy to see Groundspeak endorsing a geocaching culture of safety.

 

What will you (the royal you) do?

 

My proposal for a Geocaching Safety Forum has gone before the board of the Texas Geocaching Association. I'm almost certain it will fly because they were already thinking in that direction.

 

I just got off the phone with the owner of the Houston Geocaching Society forum and we are going to discuss a Safety Forum in greater detail next week.

 

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I would be interested in participating. May I?

 

No one needs my permission to do anything.

 

You're welcome on my local and regional forums if that's what you're asking. I'll let you know if the Safety Forums get installed. I am almost certain that they will from the conversations I've had. We'll see if the chickens hatch.

[+BlueDeuce]

I trust Groundspeak will do what's right for them and their stewardship of their listing service, employees, volunteers, users, and customers. Whatever that may be.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is and up the safety info on my caches, talk to the group as a whole about geocaching safety at events I host and maybe even events I attend if wanted and allowed, and I'll encourage my local and regional geocaching forum owners and webmasters to create a geocaching safety forum on their websites. That much I can do. I've offered to help mod the Safety Forum I proposed here, but I suspect my posting history may be too polarizing to be considered as a mod. It makes no difference to me. I would just be happy to see Groundspeak endorsing a geocaching culture of safety.

 

What will you (the royal you) do?

 

My proposal for a Geocaching Safety Forum has gone before the board of the Texas Geocaching Association. I'm almost certain it will fly because they were already thinking in that direction.

 

I just got off the phone with the owner of the Houston Geocaching Society forum and we are going to discuss a Safety Forum in greater detail next week.

 

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I would be interested in participating. May I?

 

No one needs my permission to do anything.

 

You're welcome on my local and regional forums if that's what you're asking. I'll let you know if the Safety Forums get installed. I am almost certain that they will from the conversations I've had. We'll see if the chickens hatch.

 

I'm not sure if your program idea wasn't simply sarcasm. I wouldn't participate because it's fun. Unlike the forums.

[+Snoogans]

 

I'm not sure if your program idea wasn't simply sarcasm. I wouldn't participate because it's fun. Unlike the forums.

 

Uh okay, ya lost me. What are YOU talking about?

[+BlueDeuce]

Dedication, follow through.

[+Snoogans]

Dedication, follow through.

For me or for you?

 

I don't want to overstep my bounds here. I will wait patiently for an official decision from Groundspeak.

 

I AM following through in my own circle of influence.

 

Safety is what I get paid to do. I don't mind helping out...

[+BlueDeuce]

For me or for you?

 

For me.

[Clan Riffster]

Again, what will you folks do?

Live well, laugh often, love much.

[4wheelin_fool]

Now let's see a show of hands from those that don't think this geocaching death could have been prevented...

My hands not up. I agree with you. The local community most definitely dropped the ball on this one.

I never blamed the local community. I'm leaving the blame game to the local authorities.

The very first fact in this death is that the CO place a cache in an off limits area.

That is not a pinpoint. That speaks volumes about the greater culture of geocaching.

• If we had a prevading culture of safety they might have been educated by the community at large NOT to hide a cache there.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety there might have been greater resources available than just a couple arse covering checkboxes on the cache listing submission form.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety the reviewer might have caught the fact that the listing was not up to guidelines.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety maybe 1 of the early finders would have reported the cache.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety Willi might not have had the choice to hunt that cache because the safety culture would have prevented the cache from being listed and failing that, suffering an archive prompted by a fellow concerned user.
  

None of that happened. Do you really believe it's just the local community at fault?

 

There IS a prevading culture of safety among climbing groups. People who go mountain climbing and rappelling are excellent stewarts of safety. It is the most common theme (that ive seen) in that culture. There is a recurring event in Conn., "Hanging Around Whitestone", in which climbing techniques are discussed, as well as learning the ropes about rappelling. Safety is a big part of that. In New York, the cacher BWT (Big White Truck) this past year had a class of rappelling at the same time as the event in Conneticut. If you want to discuss safety, make an event about it. Hold a class and then tackle a 5 star terrain cache afterwards as a group. That would be a start.

 

All 5 star terrain caches should employ a modicum of safety anyhow. Whether you are in a kayak, rock climbing, hiking in the desert, or up a giant mountain. Extreme terrain demands safety and preparedness. First aid knowledge is important also. Being prepared for the worst is extremely essential.

 

 

Perhaps there could be a slight modification of events to accomidate this. CITO events arose directly out of regular events in a need to promote cleaning up the environment. Perhaps there could be another branch in which safety is discussed. If it is a different icon, then you know that it would be done, if not for just that.

 

 

Safety has always been important. In schools and in scouts.

 

 

However, if you are breaking the law, it is less likely..

Edited December 24, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+TerraViators]

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

 

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

 

The right thing to do by humanity cannot be equated to the right thing to do by economics.

Edited December 24, 2011 by TerraViators

[knowschad]

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I plan to do as I've always done. I will ask land owners for permission to place my caches. I will also include any information I feel is relevant to the listing.

 

I will not go out and begin evangelizing the masses as I do not see the same issues you see.

 

I may incorporate the phrase, "y'all be careful out there" into my farewells when speaking with other cachers.

 

Is that satisfactory?

Whatever floats ya man. You don't need my approval to do your own thang.

 

Ah derision. Gotta love it.

 

 

Any derision here is coming straight from you, not GeoBain. I happen to agree with him and Briansnat. I don't want a Geo-OSHA breathing down my neck, thank you. I don 't see this as a huge issue in the first place, given the number of caches that have been logged in the 10+ years of geocaching vs. the number of fatalities or even serious injuries i that time.

[+Ladybug Kids]

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

First of all, my condolences go out to the deceased cacher's family, loved ones, and his local caching community. An untimely passing is never easy for anyone, especially when one is so young.

 

The press has already covered the specific story that caused this thread to be opened. Bringing other issues to the press has the potential to remove matters from Groundspeak's and local cachers' hands all around the world which would be most unfortunate. From my direct personal experience (34 states, fifteen foreign countries including 13 in Europe), the vast majority of cachers comply with the guidelines and don't place caches where it is clearly verboten. Is it really a good idea to bring the kind of negative publicity to our activity due to the actions of a very small minority? I believe doing so could result in an increase in land managers deciding they don't want anything to do with an activity in which (some) participants so willingly thumb their noses at land managers and law enforcement officers. The result would be the closure of lots of legitimate locations to cache.

 

With respect to safety, I'm not certain that could/should be managed by anyone other than the individual cacher. For the vast majority of geocaches including a lot of >4-star terrain caches, the act of driving to/from the location is the most dangerous part of the trip, yet people still hop into their cars without giving that a second thought. That said, my most near-death caching experience came last August on a peak less than 12 km from home when a chunk of the mountain released while I was hanging onto it. Had I been injured or killed, I certainly would hope that folks would have attributed my demise to my own lack of situational awareness and not because a cacher placed a cache where someone else could have been killed/injured. Granted, the cache is placed in compliance with the local State Park's permit and not on a utility's bridge, but ultimately, the final outcome was entirely dependent on my own actions. There are several mountaintop caches in this part of Alaska that have gone unfound because the rest of the caching community doesn't have the same skill set/fitness level as the cache hider (GC1CE9V). Each individual cacher needs to be accountable for his/her own safety and consider whether they have the skills/strength/stamina to take on the presented challenge and no one else can make that assessment for them.

 

With respect to cache hides placed without adequate permission (or just flat out illegal), it really has to be up to the cacher who places the cache and subsequent finders to keep hide part of the game legitimate. The cache hider has the primary accountability to place a hide that complies with the guidelines and to ask him/herself how the cache will reflect on geocaching if it is discovered by a land manager/law enforcement officer/other muggle. If the cache hider fails at that level, subsequent finders must be willing to report the cache to protect the integrity of the game for everyone. The only other way I an see this working is for a reviewer to visit each and every cache location before publishing the cache and I suspect the caching community would not be thrilled about the backlog of unpublished caches that would balloon with this extra step of the process, nor do I see many volunteer reviewers being willing to take on this extra accountability.

 

Reporting is quite simple via 1) an initial e-mail to the cache owner; 2) a public "Needs Archived" log; 3) a private e-mail to the local reviewer; or 4) a private e-mail to contact@geocaching.com. If neither the cache owner or the cache seekers are willing to do the above for the overall health of the activity, there is really very little that can be done about a "problem" cache. Volunteer Reviewers who are informed via means 2 or 3 who are aren't comfortable handling the situation directly can always bump the concern upstairs to the paid staff at Groundspeak. Note that whomever acts on the notification may or may not archive a cache depending on the data/evidence presented by the cacher who reports a situation and additional information provided by the cache hider in subsequent communications.

[ZeMartelo]

Until GC starts taking possible dangerous caches seriously theres nothing that can be done to prevent any more unnecessary deaths because of this silly game.

Case in point, a new cache has popped up, it requires rappelling. It not a huge climb or anything but the potential for an accident is there.

In the local facebook page I raised the issue and even pointed to this thread.

The reaction was expected to just brush it off. "Its common sense", "I'm pretty sure somebody got in a car accident and died somewhere today. Not going to keep me from driving tomorrow, either.", "Its know in advance that there are risks", "we take our own risks so if someone is not comfortable doing a find then simply don't do it","but it doesn't change the fact that accidents happen, people do these caches at their own risk, and you cannot legislate common sense!","I wouldn't wander into the middle of a busy road, after all - I'd use the crosswalk. It's all about doing things safely - even dangerous things."...

You get the gist... Not one single individual reflected and said that perhaps it could be dangerous. NOT ONE!

People forget that geocaching is a family game and people of all sorts and all ages play it and some want to have the smiley on every single cache, or simply feel they have to do it to be felt part of the community.

Rappelling can be done safely but people need to have the right equipment and know what they are doing. I dont think thats the case for all geocachers, so the potential for accident is there.

So in the end all this discussion is futile until GC gets onboard.

[+Otis.Gore]

Hmmm...this thread might just be the beginning of the end of geocaching in germany as we knew it...

[+Snoogans]

Again, what will you folks do?

 

I plan to do as I've always done. I will ask land owners for permission to place my caches. I will also include any information I feel is relevant to the listing.

 

I will not go out and begin evangelizing the masses as I do not see the same issues you see.

 

I may incorporate the phrase, "y'all be careful out there" into my farewells when speaking with other cachers.

 

Is that satisfactory?

 

Whatever floats ya man. You don't need my approval to do your own thang.

 

Ah derision. Gotta love it.

 

 

Any derision here is coming straight from you, not GeoBain. I happen to agree with him and Briansnat. I don't want a Geo-OSHA breathing down my neck, thank you. I don 't see this as a huge issue in the first place, given the number of caches that have been logged in the 10+ years of geocaching vs. the number of fatalities or even serious injuries i that time.

KC, please take a look at the totality of my posting on the subject of safety over the last 5 days or so. You are making a far fetched leap.

 

The only thing I have proposed that you could call "geo-osha" was the CO arse covering feature proposal of a warning cover sheet for cache pages which I have conceded as a half baked idea from the outset.

 

OSHA btw is a safety standards enforcement agency. Fines are their bread and butter. I have never suggested safety discipline and enforcement to my knowledge, but feel free to quote any post where I have done so.

 

What I have suggested and advocate is increasing awareness for geocaching safety and for Groundspeak as the facilitater to endorse it by at the very least creating a Geocaching Safety forum where people can go to get better educated about safety.

 

How is encouraging further discussion and awareness for safety geo-osha? And how would that be a bad thing?

Edited December 24, 2011 by Snoogans

[+Ike 13]

... a new cache has popped up, it requires rappelling. It not a huge climb or anything but the potential for an accident is there.... Not one single individual reflected and said that perhaps it could be dangerous. NOT ONE!

People forget that geocaching is a family game and people of all sorts and all ages play it and some want to have the smiley on every single cache, or simply feel they have to do it to be felt part of the community.

Rappelling can be done safely but people need to have the right equipment and know what they are doing. I dont think thats the case for all geocachers, so the potential for accident is there.

Yes rappelling can be dangerous (even for experienced climbers). Yes this is a family sport. But I don't think you'll see any parent throwing little Johnny over the side of a cliff attached just to a rope from their backyard. There are those who feel they need to do most every cache in the area, but this is their conscious decision. I would want to do that cache as well, but I would not go do it until I had the proper equipment, training, and help from experienced climbers. I love that Geocaching has expanded my horizons and given me encouragement to kayak and in the future maybe rock climb. We all take risks everyday and must assess what we are and are not willing to do. If GS ever started deciding on safety then all caches would need to be archived because any cache CAN be dangerous. The main issue with the cache Willi died at was that it was in an illegal location that could only be accessed at night. Let's try to fix that issue first.

[+RobDJr]

Until GC starts taking possible dangerous caches seriously theres nothing that can be done to prevent any more unnecessary deaths because of this silly game. <snip>

So in the end all this discussion is futile until GC gets onboard.

 

I disagree with this, to an extent.

 

When you start using the word "dangerous" to describe a cache, the game has gone beyond the realm of "silly". The whole mindset you approach the cache with has to change accordingly, or you are inviting an accident.

 

I'm not wholly clear on who exactly you mean by GC. If you mean the geocaching community as a whole, I don't have a problem with it. The aforementioned "culture of safety" concept is fine with me. But if you mean Groundspeak, ehhhh, you lose me there.

 

The thing is, I don't want anyone telling me which risks I can (and more importantly cannot) take. I admit to having taken risks while caching, done a few stupid things, and may yet do other stupid things. But I go in with my eyes open, and I try to be as careful as I can (and I mean careful, not safe, to be as safe as I can I might as well stay in bed wrapped in bubble wrap).

 

Legislating safety won't be the answer for me.

 

I once read a book in which the author did a post-mortem analysis on a variety of outdoor related accidents and deaths, discussing the psychology behind it all. One thing that made a lot of sense to me was that he basically said that in any given system, accidents will happen, but that doesn't mean an accident has to happen to you. In other words, accidents are unavoidable from a system perspective and avoidable from a personal perspective. I'd be curious to hear Snoogan's opinion of that as a safety professional who (to an extent) preaches the "all accidents are preventable" mantra.

[+HHD]

Until GC starts taking possible dangerous caches seriously theres nothing that can be done to prevent any more unnecessary deaths because of this silly game.

Case in point, a new cache has popped up, it requires rappelling. It not a huge climb or anything but the potential for an accident is there.

In the local facebook page I raised the issue and even pointed to this thread.

The reaction was expected to just brush it off. "Its common sense", "I'm pretty sure somebody got in a car accident and died somewhere today. Not going to keep me from driving tomorrow, either.", "Its know in advance that there are risks", "we take our own risks so if someone is not comfortable doing a find then simply don't do it","but it doesn't change the fact that accidents happen, people do these caches at their own risk, and you cannot legislate common sense!","I wouldn't wander into the middle of a busy road, after all - I'd use the crosswalk. It's all about doing things safely - even dangerous things."...

You get the gist... Not one single individual reflected and said that perhaps it could be dangerous. NOT ONE!

People forget that geocaching is a family game and people of all sorts and all ages play it and some want to have the smiley on every single cache, or simply feel they have to do it to be felt part of the community.

Rappelling can be done safely but people need to have the right equipment and know what they are doing. I dont think thats the case for all geocachers, so the potential for accident is there.

So in the end all this discussion is futile until GC gets onboard.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. If what you are saying is we can't have fun challenging hides that are in legal areas that may require other knowledge outside of geocaching (swimming, boating, climbing, desert awareness, etc) just because every cacher won't be able to participate then I call shananigans. I enjoy a good t/3.5-4 from time to time and have gone after some other higher terrain ratings before. If we have to bubble wrap geocaching to the point were if we all can't reach it then none of us can we are going to be relegated to LPC caches. That's just silly. This thread is here because a cacher knowingly/unknowningly went after an illegal cache. He went onto an off limits bridge surfing the night, fell through a hole in the missing grating and died from his injuries. I'm very sorry for his family. I can't even begin to comprehend the agony of this loss. I think we can all agree the culture of caching in Germany is not the same as it is in the rest of the world. However, I am not willing to change how this game is played here in America because of an illegal cache in a foreign country. I think the reviewers do a good job weeding out illegal caches here. Do they get them all? No, but if a co is dishonest in theory listing then I can't blame the reviewers. Sure they may miss one or two but it is a pretty good filter. For those few that do get past them it is left to the local geocaching community to report them when they see them. It is not a recommendation for cache police it is simply when you see a cache clearly placed in an illegal area you report it. It is then up to TPTB to deal with it. You can sleep at night knowing you did the right thing.

[ZeMartelo]

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. If what you are saying is we can't have fun challenging hides that are in legal areas that may require other knowledge outside of geocaching (swimming, boating, climbing, desert awareness, etc) just because every cacher won't be able to participate then I call shananigans. I enjoy a good t/3.5-4 from time to time and have gone after some other higher terrain ratings before. If we have to bubble wrap geocaching to the point were if we all can't reach it then none of us can we are going to be relegated to LPC caches.

 

And this right here is why I say unless GC steps in nothing will change.

[+Snoogans]

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. If what you are saying is we can't have fun challenging hides that are in legal areas that may require other knowledge outside of geocaching (swimming, boating, climbing, desert awareness, etc) just because every cacher won't be able to participate then I call shananigans. I enjoy a good t/3.5-4 from time to time and have gone after some other higher terrain ratings before. If we have to bubble wrap geocaching to the point were if we all can't reach it then none of us can we are going to be relegated to LPC caches.

 

And this right here is why I say unless GC steps in nothing will change.

 

Hmmm, I don't see it thata way. Super-accellerated growth and two geocaching deaths just 5 months apart is why I think the listing service should get involved.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. If what you are saying is we can't have fun challenging hides that are in legal areas that may require other knowledge outside of geocaching (swimming, boating, climbing, desert awareness, etc) just because every cacher won't be able to participate then I call shananigans. I enjoy a good t/3.5-4 from time to time and have gone after some other higher terrain ratings before. If we have to bubble wrap geocaching to the point were if we all can't reach it then none of us can we are going to be relegated to LPC caches.

 

And this right here is why I say unless GC steps in nothing will change.

 

OK, so to keep everyone safe from themselves, GS will only allow D1/T1 caches in parking lots. OF wait, parking lots are dangerous, too..my Mother-In-Law slipped on some ice in a parking lot and broke her leg. So I guess we better just ban caching out right.

 

(And yes, that's sarcasm.)

 

Case in point, a new cache has popped up, it requires rappelling. It not a huge climb or anything but the potential for an accident is there.

 

OK, so what? There's risk for serious injury everywhere and on every cache. A local cacher was going for a simple cache, on a small hill in the woods. It had rained the night before, and she slipped on the wet pine needles, and her leg snapped (you should see the x-rays!). She was off her feet for quite some time (~2 years). So, do we ban simple hikes in the woods? No, of course not. Do we ban caches that require scuba gear or rappelling equipment? No. People need to know their limits, and take responsibility for their actions.

 

You get the gist... Not one single individual reflected and said that perhaps it could be dangerous. NOT ONE!

People forget that geocaching is a family game and people of all sorts and all ages play it and some want to have the smiley on every single cache, or simply feel they have to do it to be felt part of the community.

 

Well guess what? Not everyone can find every cache, period. Get over it. I never took my kids on caches I didn't think they could handle or enjoy. Movies are a nice fun, family entertainment. Except those rated above what I think my kids should see. So I took them to Disney movies, and not to Zombieland. I made the decisions necessary for my family to have fun. The same needs to be done for caching. If a person feels the need to grab every cache in their area, there is nothing anyone can do to stop them - not you, not me, not GS.

 

Rappelling can be done safely but people need to have the right equipment and know what they are doing. I dont think thats the case for all geocachers, so the potential for accident is there.

So in the end all this discussion is futile until GC gets onboard.

 

GS gives cache hiders the vehicles to warm finders of potential dangers. These vehicles are available for seekers to see (attributes, cache listings, D/T ratings). If a seeker doesn't heed these warnings (or even read them), and gets themselves into a situation they shouldn't be, it's not GS's fault, it is the seeker's fault.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Case in point, a new cache has popped up, it requires rappelling. It not a huge climb or anything but the potential for an accident is there.

People forget that geocaching is a family game and people of all sorts and all ages play it and some want to have the smiley on every single cache, or simply feel they have to do it to be felt part of the community.

Rappelling can be done safely but people need to have the right equipment and know what they are doing. I dont think thats the case for all geocachers, so the potential for accident is there.

 

Is the rappelling cache placed in any are where it is legal for people to be and rappel? Is the cache rated T5 for requiring special equipment to reach it? Does the cache page clearly state that rappelling gear is required?

 

If the answer is yes to all these questions, why is this a problem? You can't ban every cache where someone might exceed their limits of skill, equipment, or good sense? Heck, in places like Florida that would be banning caches requiring a hike of N+ miles because you could get heat stroke especially if you didn't bring water.

[+OZ2CPU]

what day is it today ? come on..

my love goes to his family and friends who loved this great hobby and outdoor activity,

with 5000 finds, I am sure they got alot of experiance, and know the risk of what ever they do.

 

sure things can go wrong, even for the best person,

you dont ban cars or cigerates either.

So try to learn something from this bad experience,

try to be a little bit more safe next time you take a hi-rated cache,

or simply wait with it, until you got skils or equipment or training or just the right kind of luck needed to solve it.

it is also possible to choose NOT to take it.

 

Who can truly say they newer took a chance out there ?

cache related or not ?!?!

it is a part of life, a part of what we are, trying to explore our own limits,

most of the times we learn alot, get better, get smarter and all that, get a thrill,

you get wet, you get cold, you get a laught,

ok some brake a leg or two, and one die, what a terrible tragedy.

But this is STILL the greatest hobby or sport if you like,

and it is very safe to do.

You cant blame the CO or Groundspeak or the bridge or anyone at all for this,

you cant sue any one, and you cant bring him back, no matter what kind of noise you make..

 

Have a nice evening.

a lot of extra LOVE to all German geocachers from me.

[+CanadianRockies]

CITO events arose directly out of regular events in a need to promote cleaning up the environment. Perhaps there could be another branch in which safety is discussed.

I wouldn't mind seeing some CITOs begin with a 5-minute safety talk (e.g., how to properly handle used needles). This blog has some ideas. Information from these talks could be carried over to everyday geocaching.

[+CanadianRockies]

Hmmm...this thread might just be the beginning of the end of geocaching in germany as we knew it...

If that means fewer illegal caches, then many of us will welcome that development.

[+HHD]

Hmmm...this thread might just be the beginning of the end of geocaching in germany as we knew it...

If that means fewer illegal caches, then many of us will welcome that development.

+1

[+Ladybug Kids]

I promise to try to be careful when hunting caches and hope my fellow cachers will do the same.

That's the only way for geocaching to become safer, though perhaps it begins with guideline-compliant placements.

 

I work for a company that is an industry leader in safety. The only reason we're that good is that each and every employee recognizes safety is his or her accountability. If we left it up to the safety guys that wear the red hats who randomly show up on the worksite, our safety record would not be anywhere near what it is. Safety can't be mandated from the far removed CEO's office...the employees have had to embrace it. If our safety performace strays from the target, everyone loses out on a share of the variable incentive pay.

 

The same holds true for geocaching. No matter what Groundspeak does in Seattle, the ultimate safety and guideline compliancy of a cache is dependent initially on the cache hider and subsequently on the cache seekers with only an initial check for guideline compliance by the reviewer. Safety and guideline compliance are everyone's accountability.

 

If everyone in a given caching community isn't willing to accept that accountability, then they run the risk of caching being changed in their region and eventually, perhaps worldwide (anlogous to losing out on corporate variable incentive pay). It won't work to hang that accountability on the listing service as there is no way the listing service can police each and every cache.

 

So, are people willing to stand up to their individual accountability for the long-term viability of geocaching, or are they going to leave it to the other guy and let the chips fall where they may?

Edited December 24, 2011 by Ladybug Kids

[+GeoBain]

Hmmm...this thread might just be the beginning of the end of geocaching in germany as we knew it...

 

It's just a shame that it took a death and this thread for someone to start enforcing the guidelines over there.

[+HHD]

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. If what you are saying is we can't have fun challenging hides that are in legal areas that may require other knowledge outside of geocaching (swimming, boating, climbing, desert awareness, etc) just because every cacher won't be able to participate then I call shananigans. I enjoy a good t/3.5-4 from time to time and have gone after some other higher terrain ratings before. If we have to bubble wrap geocaching to the point were if we all can't reach it then none of us can we are going to be relegated to LPC caches.

 

And this right here is why I say unless GC steps in nothing will change.

 

Because I enjoy a LEGAL hide that isn't an LPC or a film canister in some pine tree right on a walking trail? Oh wait...pine trees have needles that might stick on someone's eye, also people are allergic to their pollen so those are out...hey I might be in favor of this if we can ban those.

[+Otis.Gore]

Well it's the start of something new.... a new age of paranoia and ANGST in the german caching community.

Let's see how that works out

 

[+GeoBain]

Well it's the start of something new.... a new age of paranoia and ANGST in the german caching community.

Let's see how that works out

 

 

Keep us posted.

[Clan Riffster]

Not one single individual reflected and said that perhaps it could be dangerous. NOT ONE!

Uh... According to your own post, someone did.

 

"Its know in advance that there are risks"

"we take our own risks"

"...even dangerous things."

 

Sounds like several people acknowledged that attempting the cache could be dangerous.

Are you one of those folks who think the whole world should be bubble wrapped?

[veit]

Hi guys, I know I said I didnt want to post for a while, but I can't stop thinking about this, and just had another idea that I want to get out there for others to consider.

 

First a quick note - I realize that saying I will bring media attention to this issue makes me hugely unpopular here. It's the ultima ratio. I am not experienced enough to know, how decisions are made within geocaching normally/how community consensus is built. So far I've only seen this Forum really, some local groups, and getsatisfaction that seems to have been shut down. To me it's clear that Groundspeak completely controls the decision making and communication process. So this thread is a tool to collect ideas, get a lot of different opinions on what can be done, alert those very few that are reading here (in relation to all geocachers) of ideas what can be done (it certainly worked for me, I see illegally placed caches much different now than a week ago and am taking local action). But in the end, it might not put enough pressure on Groundspeak to act (while some disagree that they should act at all, a lot of ideas in this thread need their action, be it features on the site or communication to all geocachers). So if the pressure of the event itself, and our voices here is not enough to get them to act, again, I am not afraid to bring in outside pressure. I've seen it work in other communities, and if nothing happens here in a reasonable time frame, it might be the only thing that helps here.

 

My new idea: a new log type "too risky for me" (TRFM). Same result as "found": it's filtered out from searches, on the map maybe marked with a big red X, or R, or little red devil, or some other nice icon. A lot different from DNF: you will not see it as a cache that you simply haven't found anymore, it won't tempt you in the same way on a map. Different from "ignore" as well - that feature, only a minority of members can use (paying ones) - and especially newer cachers who might be eager to follow in the footsteps of those "cool guys" usually are not. Also different in that there actually is no log type associated with "ignore"...you do it silently.

 

I think this TRFM log would address a number of issues we have raised in this thread. First of all, on such risky caches we would not only see all those glowing logs of people who have done the cache. Who climbed that tree without equipment, who reached into that pole with the wiring, who did other things more risk averse people might deem too risky. It would clearly communicate: yes, you are free to take risks when geocaching, but I am also free to take a look at that cache high up in the tree, walk away, but still log a logtype that is somehow meaningful in stats and features on the site. I think it's another small puzzle piece in starting to change the culture. Personally, I can think of a number of caches that I did, where having this log type would probably have stopped me.

 

I think this log type gives a voice to a silent majority in geocaching who are NOT proponents of the "higher, riskier, more dangerous" attitude. One that is probably much more prevalent with the most active cachers (need more, new kicks) - who also often are some sort of role models, at least locally.

 

Yes, a cache with a lot of TRFM logs would probably also attract thrill seekers. But those cannot be stopped anyway, they will find their risky kick with that cache or elsewhere - or they might even be the best equipped, best trained, most careful ones. But I venture to say that the huge majority of geocachers are not expert climbers, divers etc., and putting risky geocaches in front of them whenever they use the site, eventually will get some of them to give in to that feeling of "argh, I want that smiley" and take risks that are on calm, rational view, not worth it.

 

If you are sitting at home reading a description, or even more importantly, at the cache location, just knowing that you have that outlet - that you can simply log "too risky for me" and be done with it, forever (in geocaching terms), and will be in company with tons of other likeminded cachers, might just stop some of us from taking too high a risk and again, reduce accidents and deaths in the long run.

 

Once more, have a Merry Christmas everyone, I hope I can stop thinking about this for a while now and get some sleep (and yes, Snoogans, I am sleep deprived )

Edited December 25, 2011 by veit

[+paleolith]

So sad.

 

I do like Snoogans' idea of a place to discuss safety. Would it attain critical mass -- enough to keep discussions snowballing instead of dying out? I don't know, but it seems worth a try. (And Snoogans has made some of the most cogent and informed posts in this thread.)

 

I'm far more leery of t3.5 urban caches than of t3.5 backwoods caches, because the t3.5 tends to mean something different. I've found many t3.5+ caches, and only a couple had any exposure at all. One of them I probably shouldn't have done, at least not by the direct route. Even that one probably wouldn't have killed me if I'd fallen, unless I'd hit my head on a rock, of which there were plenty.

 

Backwoods t3.5+ caches are usually rated thus because reaching them requires a strenuous hike. (Or in the case of 4x4 caches, a difficult drive.) Urban t3.5+ caches either require a short but difficult move, or include exposure. This one at first appeared to be in the last category, though the images posted later indicate that there wasn't really much exposure except for the missing piece of grille which one was supposed to stop short of, and that quite possibly it was overrated at t3.5 -- and yet the exposure was significant because of the missing grille.

 

I could suggest a separate attribure or rating for exposure. But for the reasons other have presented, I don't think it would add much. I think a cache with significant exposure should make that very clear in the description, and I have to say that I don't think the description of this cache made that clear. But would that have made any difference? Would it have made this death any less likely? I don't know. Can't say. Still, I do think the CO should have described the exposure, since the terrain rating alone isn't that specific, but I'm not willing to say the lack of that description contributed to the tragic death.

 

It would be great if coordinates were only revealed to those who understand any dangers involved. I don't see any way to do that, nor do I think it would have much effect. And where would you draw the line? Would risk of contracting poison ivy/oak count? Only risk of death? If so, would risk of death from heart attack on a strenuous hike count?

 

Recently someone posted about being attacked by yellowjackets while seeking one of my caches. I added a boldface note at the top of the description. I suppose I could have disabled it for a while, but yellowjackets are fickle and may never attack again.

 

Some twelve years ago, I took several hikes in the Arc Dome Wilderness. After that trip, I wrote

 

Soon I reach the edge of the plateau and I'm met by one of those snow banks. For someone with basic snow travel skills, this would be no big deal. But I take a couple of steps and realize that not only do I not know how far I can trust the snow, but also the bank becomes steeper and from the top I can't tell what the worst will be. I look for a way around. To the north it seems to go on interminably. I walk south, but soon I'm blocked by the vertical dropoff into a large cirque. There's one spot where a few steps on the snow would take me to solid ground below, but it's right at the edge of the cirque. I slip, I die. It's tempting but not that tempting. I move a few feet north to where a slip would only hurt, not kill, and pick my way.

Suppose I'd made the wrong choice, and suppose I'd slipped. And suppose I'd been geocaching ... in fact, the spot I describe is only a few meters from the Arc Dome cache. Would that have been called a death while geocaching? I need to go back and find that cache ...

 

new log type is a few programmer hours for Groundspeak

This seriously understates the effort required. A few hours of analysis and more than a few hours locating everything that's affected, which includes page layouts as well as database code. A few hours of coding. At least a few dozen hours of testing. Notifying the developers of all geocaching applications, most of which have to be modified -- with additional time from all those developers. (Some time ago GS tried to change "Found it" to "Found It" and had to back off because it broke so many things.) Then manage that coordination and track progress until it's deemed OK to implement the change. Write documentation and monitor comments on the forum. Monitor results after implementation. All in all you are talking a few hundred hours. I express no opinion on whether it should be done or is worth the cost, but this comment very seriously underestimates the cost.

 

Edward

[+steben6]

Hi guys, I know I said I didnt want to post for a while, but I can't stop thinking about this, and just had another idea that I want to get out there for others to consider.

 

First a quick note - I realize that saying I will bring media attention to this issue makes me hugely unpopular here. It's the ultima ratio. I am not experienced enough to know, how decisions are made within geocaching normally/how community consensus is built. So far I've only seen this Forum really, some local groups, and getsatisfaction that seems to have been shut down. To me it's clear that Groundspeak completely controls the decision making and communication process. So this thread is a tool to collect ideas, get a lot of different opinions on what can be done, alert those very few that are reading here (in relation to all geocachers) of ideas what can be done (it certainly worked for me, I see illegally placed caches much different now than a week ago and am taking local action). But in the end, it might not put enough pressure on Groundspeak to act (while some disagree that they should act at all, a lot of ideas in this thread need their action, be it features on the site or communication to all geocachers). So if the pressure of the event itself, and our voices here is not enough to get them to act, again, I am not afraid to bring in outside pressure. I've seen it work in other communities, and if nothing happens here in a reasonable time frame, it might be the only thing that helps here.

 

My new idea: a new log type "too risky for me" (TRFM). Same result as "found": it's filtered out from searches, on the map maybe marked with a big red X, or R, or little red devil, or some other nice icon. A lot different from DNF: you will not see it as a cache that you simply haven't found anymore, it won't tempt you in the same way on a map. Different from "ignore" as well - that feature, only a minority of members can use (paying ones) - and especially newer cachers who might be eager to follow in the footsteps of those "cool guys" usually are not. Also different in that there actually is no log type associated with "ignore"...you do it silently.

 

I think this TRFM log would address a number of issues we have raised in this thread. First of all, on such risky caches we would not only see all those glowing logs of people who have done the cache. Who climbed that tree without equipment, who reached into that pole with the wiring, who did other things more risk averse people might deem too risky. It would clearly communicate: yes, you are free to take risks when geocaching, but I am also free to take a look at that cache high up in the tree, walk away, but still log a logtype that is somehow meaningful in stats and features on the site. I think it's another small puzzle piece in starting to change the culture. Personally, I can think of a number of caches that I did, where having this log type would probably have stopped me.

 

I think this log type gives a voice to a silent majority in geocaching who are NOT proponents of the "higher, riskier, more dangerous" attitude. One that is probably much more prevalent with the most active cachers (need more, new kicks) - who also often are some sort of role models, at least locally.

 

Yes, a cache with a lot of TRFM logs would probably also attract thrill seekers. But those cannot be stopped anyway, they will find their risky kick with that cache or elsewhere - or they might even be the best equipped, best trained, most careful ones. But I venture to say that the huge majority of geocachers are not expert climbers, divers etc., and putting risky geocaches in front of them whenever they use the site, eventually will get some of them to give in to that feeling of "argh, I want that smiley" and take risks that are on calm, rational view, not worth it.

 

If you are sitting at home reading a description, or even more importantly, at the cache location, just knowing that you have that outlet - that you can simply log "too risky for me" and be done with it, forever (in geocaching terms), and will be in company with tons of other likeminded cachers, might just stop some of us from taking too high a risk and again, reduce accidents and deaths in the long run.

 

Once more, have a Merry Christmas everyone, I hope I can stop thinking about this for a while now and get some sleep (and yes, Snoogans, I am sleep deprived )

Seriously, let it go. You are not the geocaching police. Let people make their own adult decisions about how or if they want to cache.

[+steben6]

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

First of all, my condolences go out to the deceased cacher's family, loved ones, and his local caching community. An untimely passing is never easy for anyone, especially when one is so young.

 

The press has already covered the specific story that caused this thread to be opened. Bringing other issues to the press has the potential to remove matters from Groundspeak's and local cachers' hands all around the world which would be most unfortunate. From my direct personal experience (34 states, fifteen foreign countries including 13 in Europe), the vast majority of cachers comply with the guidelines and don't place caches where it is clearly verboten. Is it really a good idea to bring the kind of negative publicity to our activity due to the actions of a very small minority? I believe doing so could result in an increase in land managers deciding they don't want anything to do with an activity in which (some) participants so willingly thumb their noses at land managers and law enforcement officers. The result would be the closure of lots of legitimate locations to cache.

 

With respect to safety, I'm not certain that could/should be managed by anyone other than the individual cacher. For the vast majority of geocaches including a lot of >4-star terrain caches, the act of driving to/from the location is the most dangerous part of the trip, yet people still hop into their cars without giving that a second thought. That said, my most near-death caching experience came last August on a peak less than 12 km from home when a chunk of the mountain released while I was hanging onto it. Had I been injured or killed, I certainly would hope that folks would have attributed my demise to my own lack of situational awareness and not because a cacher placed a cache where someone else could have been killed/injured. Granted, the cache is placed in compliance with the local State Park's permit and not on a utility's bridge, but ultimately, the final outcome was entirely dependent on my own actions. There are several mountaintop caches in this part of Alaska that have gone unfound because the rest of the caching community doesn't have the same skill set/fitness level as the cache hider (GC1CE9V). Each individual cacher needs to be accountable for his/her own safety and consider whether they have the skills/strength/stamina to take on the presented challenge and no one else can make that assessment for them.

 

With respect to cache hides placed without adequate permission (or just flat out illegal), it really has to be up to the cacher who places the cache and subsequent finders to keep hide part of the game legitimate. The cache hider has the primary accountability to place a hide that complies with the guidelines and to ask him/herself how the cache will reflect on geocaching if it is discovered by a land manager/law enforcement officer/other muggle. If the cache hider fails at that level, subsequent finders must be willing to report the cache to protect the integrity of the game for everyone. The only other way I an see this working is for a reviewer to visit each and every cache location before publishing the cache and I suspect the caching community would not be thrilled about the backlog of unpublished caches that would balloon with this extra step of the process, nor do I see many volunteer reviewers being willing to take on this extra accountability.

 

Reporting is quite simple via 1) an initial e-mail to the cache owner; 2) a public "Needs Archived" log; 3) a private e-mail to the local reviewer; or 4) a private e-mail to contact@geocaching.com. If neither the cache owner or the cache seekers are willing to do the above for the overall health of the activity, there is really very little that can be done about a "problem" cache. Volunteer Reviewers who are informed via means 2 or 3 who are aren't comfortable handling the situation directly can always bump the concern upstairs to the paid staff at Groundspeak. Note that whomever acts on the notification may or may not archive a cache depending on the data/evidence presented by the cacher who reports a situation and additional information provided by the cache hider in subsequent communications.

+1

Well said.

[I!]

So this thread is a tool to collect ideas, get a lot of different opinions on what can be done, alert those very few that are reading here (in relation to all geocachers) of ideas what can be done ...

It would help if you collected a summary of the ideas being pursued (to distinguish them from the mass of ideas/comments just "chucked out there") in your opening post. Perhaps a bullet-pointed list would do the trick; something like this:

 

1. Warning logs
   • Original description: post #21
   • Action taken: gc.com feature request - New logtype: "Warning"
   • Comments: not a well-liked suggestion, but better than a wiki-like editable Warnings section on the listing

[*]Anonymous reporting

• Original description: post #183
• Action taken: gc.com feature request - "Report" button on cache pages
• Comments: -

[*]Safety forum

• Original description: post #537 (buried somewhere in a long post)
• Action taken: gc.com feature request - Geocaching Safety Forum
• Comments: -

[*]Cover the landscape with marshmallow

• Original description: wikipedia
• Action taken: have petitioned Zuul
• Comments: om nom nom ...

Merry Christmas!

 

---

 

EDIT: I see it's not possible to edit a post after a while. OK, how about creating a Facebook(?) page for this issue and maintaining the summary of ideas-being-pursued there?

Edited December 25, 2011 by I!

[+GeoBain]

You forgot option #5: Enjoy Christmas. Rehash tomorrow.