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

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

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.

 

If their are any lawyers reading this, you may have opened yourself up to legal action. I don't know if it would be considered extortion or blackmail. But to threaten to do something that may cause financial loss, if you do not get your way would be classified as a felony here in the USA. I don't know about Germany, but I would think there are similar laws there.

 

Any Lawyers want to offer some advice?

 

John

[+CanadianRockies]

I don't know if it would be considered extortion or blackmail. But to threaten to do something that may cause financial loss, if you do not get your way would be classified as a felony here in the USA. I don't know about Germany, but I would think there are similar laws there.

 

Any Lawyers want to offer some advice?

I'm not a lawyer, but I know lots of people threaten boycotts if companies don't make certain changes. I'm not aware of any of them being arrested...as long as they didn't demand that the companies pay money to them.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I don't know if it would be considered extortion or blackmail. But to threaten to do something that may cause financial loss, if you do not get your way would be classified as a felony here in the USA. I don't know about Germany, but I would think there are similar laws there.

 

Any Lawyers want to offer some advice?

I'm not a lawyer, but I know lots of people threaten boycotts if companies don't make certain changes. I'm not aware of any of them being arrested...as long as they didn't demand that the companies pay money to them.

 

Threatening to boycott a business is different than threatening to cause financial damage. If Veit wants to boycott Groundspeak he may do so, but to threaten to send unsubstantiated information to the news with the intent to cause Groundspeak a financial lose and cause their reputation damage is quite a different thing.

 

It is like asking what is the difference between a snide comment and slander or libel.

 

That's why a lawyer could offer better point of view.

 

John

[+CanadianRockies]

I don't know if it would be considered extortion or blackmail. But to threaten to do something that may cause financial loss, if you do not get your way would be classified as a felony here in the USA. I don't know about Germany, but I would think there are similar laws there.

 

Any Lawyers want to offer some advice?

I'm not a lawyer, but I know lots of people threaten boycotts if companies don't make certain changes. I'm not aware of any of them being arrested...as long as they didn't demand that the companies pay money to them.

Threatening to boycott a business is different than threatening to cause financial damage. If Veit wants to boycott Groundspeak he may do so, but to threaten to send unsubstantiated information to the news with the intent to cause Groundspeak a financial lose and cause their reputation damage is quite a different thing.

Sorry. I meant to say I know lots of people who threaten to organize boycotts. Organized boycotts with many participants can cause significant financial damage to companies.

[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.

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?

 

I think that most people understood that, by "geo-OSHA" that I didn't mean it as literally as you took it. To most of us that are not into safety as an occupation like you, OSHA is more of a symbol than you seem to realize. The other terms used here, "bubble-wrap" and the like are essentially saying the same thing... we don't need or want somebody babysitting us. Before you know it, we will all have to pass a Geocaching Safely Certification course and wear special Geocaching helmets to play this game. Yeah... you only want a forum to discuss this stuff. That's all. Right. We all know that it wouldn't end with mere discussion. The only reason you would want a forum to discuss safety is to plan changes that many of us don't want to see made. I happen to LIKE a little risk to my life. Its pretty boring without it. It is entirely possible that Willimax would have felt the same way.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

First let me say I'm sorry that an accident has taken the life of a fellow cacher.

 

Second I think things are fine the way they are. I've read TONS of this thread and its amazing how a snowball gains size as it rolls down a hill. I have found dozens if not hundreds of perfectly fine caches, legal in every way, where a misstep in the wrong direction would have killed me or caused serious injury. When outdoors WE are responsible for our safety. WE observe situations and terrain. WE decide if we cache at night or day.

There will continue to be accidents in EVERY outdoor activity. Hunting, fishing, hiking, bicycle riding, geocaching, etc. will continue to generate casualties.

[+JesandTodd]

 

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.

 

I know, right? Why try to prevent another tragedy from happening? Who the heck are we? I mean, why would anybody want to employ a simple warning about a big gaping hole in the middle of a bridge on a cache that encourages people to cross at night?

 

Shucks. We really should let it go. It's Christmas after all. Why should we worry about others safety at the holidays anyway.

[+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?

 

I think that most people understood that, by "geo-OSHA" that I didn't mean it as literally as you took it. To most of us that are not into safety as an occupation like you, OSHA is more of a symbol than you seem to realize. The other terms used here, "bubble-wrap" and the like are essentially saying the same thing... we don't need or want somebody babysitting us. Before you know it, we will all have to pass a Geocaching Safely Certification course and wear special Geocaching helmets to play this game. Yeah... you only want a forum to discuss this stuff. That's all. Right. We all know that it wouldn't end with mere discussion. The only reason you would want a forum to discuss safety is to plan changes that many of us don't want to see made. I happen to LIKE a little risk to my life. Its pretty boring without it. It is entirely possible that Willimax would have felt the same way.

<Scooby Doo ending>

Ya got me. It was yet another of my dastardly plans to destroy geocaching. This time through voluntary participation in a geocaching safety awareness forum.

 

And I'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for that meddling Knowschad!

</Scooby Doo ending>

 

Dear Chadperson,

 

I believe you give me too much credit. I am not a paid lackey, or a Groundspeak volunteer, nor am I likely to ever be one. I've only met two of the 3 founders and I can assure you that no one at Groundspeak (or Seattle for that matter) has me on speed dial.

 

In short, I have exactly no say in changes, if any that Groundspeak might make, that come from the recent focus on geocaching safety.

 

I'm flatterd that you seem to fear my influence to change thangs for the worse in your perception. That's also strictly my perception of the bolded portion of your post.

 

ps You have just received the “Snoogans Virus” As I don’t have any programming experience, this virus works on the honor system. Please delete all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to everyone on your mailing list.

Thanks for your cooperation...

 

Edited December 26, 2011 by Snoogans

[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.

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?

 

I think that most people understood that, by "geo-OSHA" that I didn't mean it as literally as you took it. To most of us that are not into safety as an occupation like you, OSHA is more of a symbol than you seem to realize. The other terms used here, "bubble-wrap" and the like are essentially saying the same thing... we don't need or want somebody babysitting us. Before you know it, we will all have to pass a Geocaching Safely Certification course and wear special Geocaching helmets to play this game. Yeah... you only want a forum to discuss this stuff. That's all. Right. We all know that it wouldn't end with mere discussion. The only reason you would want a forum to discuss safety is to plan changes that many of us don't want to see made. I happen to LIKE a little risk to my life. Its pretty boring without it. It is entirely possible that Willimax would have felt the same way.

<Scooby Doo ending>

Ya got me. It was yet another of my dastardly plans to destroy geocaching. This time through voluntary participation in a geocaching safety awareness forum.

 

And I'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for that meddling Knowschad!

</Scooby Doo ending>

 

Dear Chadperson,

 

I believe you give me too much credit. I am not a paid lackey, or a Groundspeak volunteer, nor am I likely to ever be one. I've only met two of the 3 founders and I can assure you that no one at Groundspeak (or Seattle for that matter) has me on speed dial.

 

In short, I have exactly no say in changes, if any that Groundspeak might make, that come from the recent focus on geocaching safety.

 

I'm flatterd that you seem to fear my influence to change thangs for the worse in your perception. That's also strictly my perception of the bolded portion of your post.

 

ps You have just received the "Snoogans Virus" As I don't have any programming experience, this virus works on the honor system. Please delete all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to everyone on your mailing list.

Thanks for your cooperation...

 

 

More derision. About what I expected from the self-proclaimed King of Ego. But your ego has gotten the better of you if you think that you are the only person in this thread that I am talking about. I'm talking about the whole concept, of which you seem to be trying to make yourself the spokesman for, even to the point of suggesting a list of possible moderators for a Safety forum by linking to a thread of your own creation. Snoogans, I'm thrilled about your new career I hope that you are highly successful with it. At work. But leave it at work, OK?

Edited December 26, 2011 by knowschad

[+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?

 

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?

 

I think that most people understood that, by "geo-OSHA" that I didn't mean it as literally as you took it. To most of us that are not into safety as an occupation like you, OSHA is more of a symbol than you seem to realize. The other terms used here, "bubble-wrap" and the like are essentially saying the same thing... we don't need or want somebody babysitting us. Before you know it, we will all have to pass a Geocaching Safely Certification course and wear special Geocaching helmets to play this game. Yeah... you only want a forum to discuss this stuff. That's all. Right. We all know that it wouldn't end with mere discussion. The only reason you would want a forum to discuss safety is to plan changes that many of us don't want to see made. I happen to LIKE a little risk to my life. Its pretty boring without it. It is entirely possible that Willimax would have felt the same way.

<Scooby Doo ending>

Ya got me. It was yet another of my dastardly plans to destroy geocaching. This time through voluntary participation in a geocaching safety awareness forum.

 

And I'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for that meddling Knowschad!

</Scooby Doo ending>

 

Dear Chadperson,

 

I believe you give me too much credit. I am not a paid lackey, or a Groundspeak volunteer, nor am I likely to ever be one. I've only met two of the 3 founders and I can assure you that no one at Groundspeak (or Seattle for that matter) has me on speed dial.

 

In short, I have exactly no say in changes, if any that Groundspeak might make, that come from the recent focus on geocaching safety.

 

I'm flatterd that you seem to fear my influence to change thangs for the worse in your perception. That's also strictly my perception of the bolded portion of your post.

 

ps You have just received the “Snoogans Virus” As I don’t have any programming experience, this virus works on the honor system. Please delete all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to everyone on your mailing list.

Thanks for your cooperation...

 

 

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

I realize you do this for a living and because of that you put a lot of value in it.

 

But while I do think CO's should include important information such as hidden dangers they may know about but the general public wouldn't, I think the volunteer system now in place is just fine.

 

Most owners of legitimate caches are more than happy to include this information. I just don't see this huge problem that you see. But often we find what we are looking for. You are looking for safety issues and finding them. I am looking at a pretty good system and finding it.

 

I'll say it again. Legitimate CO's tend to put relevant information in their listings. Finders of these caches are free to search for the cache in relative safety because they have permission to be there and are not being hurried to finish the cache before the cops catch them.

 

But go to find a cache in a location where the cops will likely be called if you are caught and you might skip some of the normal safety habits in favor of speed and stealth.

 

So, enforce the guidelines first. If you still see problems with caches after that, let's come back and discuss this then.

[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.

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?

 

I think that most people understood that, by "geo-OSHA" that I didn't mean it as literally as you took it. To most of us that are not into safety as an occupation like you, OSHA is more of a symbol than you seem to realize. The other terms used here, "bubble-wrap" and the like are essentially saying the same thing... we don't need or want somebody babysitting us. Before you know it, we will all have to pass a Geocaching Safely Certification course and wear special Geocaching helmets to play this game. Yeah... you only want a forum to discuss this stuff. That's all. Right. We all know that it wouldn't end with mere discussion. The only reason you would want a forum to discuss safety is to plan changes that many of us don't want to see made. I happen to LIKE a little risk to my life. Its pretty boring without it. It is entirely possible that Willimax would have felt the same way.

<Scooby Doo ending>

Ya got me. It was yet another of my dastardly plans to destroy geocaching. This time through voluntary participation in a geocaching safety awareness forum.

 

And I'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for that meddling Knowschad!

</Scooby Doo ending>

 

Dear Chadperson,

 

I believe you give me too much credit. I am not a paid lackey, or a Groundspeak volunteer, nor am I likely to ever be one. I've only met two of the 3 founders and I can assure you that no one at Groundspeak (or Seattle for that matter) has me on speed dial.

 

In short, I have exactly no say in changes, if any that Groundspeak might make, that come from the recent focus on geocaching safety.

 

I'm flatterd that you seem to fear my influence to change thangs for the worse in your perception. That's also strictly my perception of the bolded portion of your post.

 

ps You have just received the "Snoogans Virus" As I don't have any programming experience, this virus works on the honor system. Please delete all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to everyone on your mailing list.

Thanks for your cooperation...

 

 

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

I realize you do this for a living and because of that you put a lot of value in it.

 

But while I do think CO's should include important information such as hidden dangers they may know about but the general public wouldn't, I think the volunteer system now in place is just fine.

 

Most owners of legitimate caches are more than happy to include this information. I just don't see this huge problem that you see. But often we find what we are looking for. You are looking for safety issues and finding them. I am looking at a pretty good system and finding it.

 

I'll say it again. Legitimate CO's tend to put relevant information in their listings. Finders of these caches are free to search for the cache in relative safety because they have permission to be there and are not being hurried to finish the cache before the cops catch them.

 

But go to find a cache in a location where the cops will likely be called if you are caught and you might skip some of the normal safety habits in favor of speed and stealth.

 

So, enforce the guidelines first. If you still see problems with caches after that, let's come back and discuss this then.

 

Thank you. Very well phrased, and pretty much the way I feel about this whole thing, including the condescending attitude bit.

Edited December 26, 2011 by knowschad

[+cx1]

 

More derision. About what I expected from the self-proclaimed King of Ego. But your ego has gotten the better of you if you think that you are the only person in this thread that I am talking about. I'm talking about the whole concept, of which you seem to be trying to make yourself the spokesman for, even to the point of suggesting a list of possible moderators for a Safety forum by linking to a thread of your own creation. Snoogans, I'm thrilled about your new career I hope that you are highly successful with it. At work. But leave it at work, OK?

 

Since you are not referring to 90%+ of the information you just quoted, is it really necessary to continually quote all of it?

 

Seriously, wading through all the nested quotes gets really old. And with over 15K posts you probably are aware of how to avoid doing it.

If they do make a safety forum I hope they can impose a two quote nest maximum.

[+CanadianRockies]

To the contrary, the word "safety" appears nowhere in the listing guidelines.

But, as was recently pointed out in another thread, Groundspeak's first fundamental placement guideline states, "All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it." And many jurisdictions have negligence laws that, among other things, often cover certain dangerous situations.

 

Unless I'm missing something (and I certainly could be), it seems that reviewers could consider safety in relatively rare cases where caches include serious, hidden dangers that the owner does not warn about on the listing page. At least when those serious, hidden dangers are brought to the attention of the reviewer.

 

Edit to Add: In the other thread, Keystone recently noted that Groundspeak's guidelines are intended to apply only to criminal laws and not to tort laws. Thanks, Keystone, for that clarification. Perhaps that guideline could be amended in the next round of revisions.

Edited December 26, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+GeoBain]

To the contrary, the word "safety" appears nowhere in the listing guidelines.

But, as was recently pointed out in another thread, Groundspeak's first fundamental placement guideline states, "All local laws apply. This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it." And many jurisdictions have negligence laws that, among other things, often cover certain dangerous situations.

 

Unless I'm missing something (and I certainly could be), it seems that reviewers could consider safety in relatively rare cases where caches include serious, hidden dangers that the owner does not warn about on the listing page. At least when those serious, hidden dangers are brought to the attention of the reviewer.

 

Just for kicks, because I've seen Keystone state this many times, I ran a query on the word safety and author Keystone. Here is what he has consistently stated over the years:

 

Reviewers don't review for safety.

 

Thanks for finding the listing. The permission statement really ends the discussion, other than the safety angle. I will tell the New York reviewer to archive this unsafe vending machine cache, but only after I first archive every tree climbing cache in the State of Ohio.

 

I have reviewed and published tens of thousands of cache submissions over the past eight years. I can truthfully say that I have never once had this exercise play out in my head. If I ever said to myself, "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm, but I'm going to recklessly disregard this knowledge," I think I would remember that.I don't think that way, because that's not what reviewing caches is all about. - I need to go back and read this thread because it deals with whether or not reviewers consider safety.

 

If we reviewed caches for safety, I'd begin by archiving all the caches that require or encourage driving a vehicle. More geocachers are killed or injured through this dangerous activity than from any other cause.

 

Note there is nothing about safety in this summary. There might have been a reference to it in a private e-mail to which I obviously wouldn't have access. But the reasoning in the original note is sound. Find a spot 150 feet away or show evidence of permission if the tracks are active.

 

2. Read the listing guidelines top to bottom and try to find the word "safety" or "safe." You won't. You will see the word "danger" just once -- where the guidelines talk about how muggles perceive our activities as possibly being dangerous. The guidelines do not regulate safety; otherwise, I have a lot of terrain 5 caches to go archive.

The basis for the railroad guideline is property rights and trespassing, not safety. Increased safety is a nice but unintended byproduct of staying clear of the railroad's right of way.

 

Reviewers don't police the safety of cache hides. We police the listing guidelines. Go to the guidelines page, do a search on the word "safety," and report back which guideline is put at issue.

 

There's nothing in the guidelines specific to electrical-themed caches, and nothing in the guidelines about "safety."Of course, all local laws apply.

 

As I explained to you in response to your e-mail complaint, that cache did not break any guidelines. Publishing a cache that meets the guidelines is not "letting one slide," it is doing my job. Please show me a guideline that says a cache with no convenient nearby parking cannot be listed. And if there were a general safety guideline that I've been overlooking all these years, please excuse me while I go archive a bunch of caches on the sides of cliffs. I can only hold up publication of a cache if it violates the published guidelines. The cache under discussion in this thread violated several.

 

There's more, but I invite you to search for yourself.

 

Keystone has been very consistent in regards to safety and the guidelines. The guidelines do not speak to safety.

 

But if reviewers are notified of a gross safety issue, there are tricks in their toolbox they can often use to deal with these issues. The primary tool I would guess is that if it's a blatant safety issue, chances are really good that proper permission was not obtained.

[+fizzymagic]

Edit to Add: In the other thread, Keystone recently noted that Groundspeak's guidelines are intended to apply only to criminal laws and not to tort laws. Thanks, Keystone, for that clarification. Perhaps that guideline could be amended in the next round of revisions.

 

That is the worst idea I have herd in this thread, and that is really saying something. I am hoping that you only made the suggestion out of complete ignorance of the law.

 

Groundspeak is not, ans should not, be in the business of evaluating the safety of caches it lists. It's an impossible job and not at all in the scope of things that a listing service should undertake.

 

To say that it is up to Groundspeak to approve the safety of caches is quite similar to having an automobile reviewer, such as Consumer Reports, held responsible for the safety of the cars they review.

[+CanadianRockies]

Edit to Add: In the other thread, Keystone recently noted that Groundspeak's guidelines are intended to apply only to criminal laws and not to tort laws. Thanks, Keystone, for that clarification. Perhaps that guideline could be amended in the next round of revisions.

That is the worst idea I have herd in this thread, and that is really saying something.

Just to clarify my statement... Perhaps the guideline should be amended in the next round of revisions to state: "All local criminal laws apply." As it stands now, the guideline certainly appears to cover both criminal laws and tort laws.

[+Snoogans]

[More derision. About what I expected from the self-proclaimed King of Ego. But your ego has gotten the better of you if you think that you are the only person in this thread that I am talking about. I'm talking about the whole concept, of which you seem to be trying to make yourself the spokesman for, even to the point of suggesting a list of possible moderators for a Safety forum by linking to a thread of your own creation. Snoogans, I'm thrilled about your new career I hope that you are highly successful with it. At work. But leave it at work, OK?

 

I am not an ego maniac, but I play one on the internet. There are many geocachers in this forum that have met me and know the difference.

 

Chadperson... You are seriously paranoid if you think Groundspeak will elect me spokesperson of anything or that I would want to be. Your response proves that I am too polarizing to do that job. I posted the list because I pretty much know that even though I have offered to mod the proposed safety forum, there would be opposition in the ranks of the other volunteers. I only did so because it was my proposal and it's my ethic to try to fix problems I point out if it's in my ability to do so.

 

I can't help it if I find foregone conclusions and paranoia over change amusing. Perhaps if you stopped posting forgone conclusions and paranoind refrences to my influence as a frequent poster on this subject, I would sound less condedecending.

 

I see no harm in encouraging folks to discuss geocaching safety. I have been and will be a frequent poster on the subject. I believe it will save lives and serious injuries in the long term. I'm sorry if that inconveniences you.

 

If changes are made it will be Groundspeak that makes them, but blame it all on me if it makes you feel better.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Snoogans

[+GeoBain]

Edit to Add: In the other thread, Keystone recently noted that Groundspeak's guidelines are intended to apply only to criminal laws and not to tort laws. Thanks, Keystone, for that clarification. Perhaps that guideline could be amended in the next round of revisions.

That is the worst idea I have herd in this thread, and that is really saying something.

Just to clarify my statement... Perhaps the guideline should be amended in the next round of revisions to state: "All local criminal laws apply." As it stands now, the guideline certainly appears to cover both criminal laws and tort laws.

 

Most of us already recognize it refers to criminal law.

[+GeoBain]

Perhaps if you stopped posting forgone conclusions and paranoind refrences to my influence as a frequent poster on this subject, I would sound less condedecending.

 

Perhaps if you stopped posting condescending posts you would sound less condescending.

 

Can't we just disagree without accusations of derision and condescension? I'll give it a try if you will.

[+CanadianRockies]

Keystone has been very consistent in regards to safety and the guidelines. The guidelines do not speak to safety.

I wasn't questioning Keystone's consistency. I was wondering if he might have made a mistake in his interpretation of the guidelines (and I admitted the confusion might well be mine).

 

But if reviewers are notified of a gross safety issue, there are tricks in their toolbox they can often use to deal with these issues. The primary tool I would guess is that if it's a blatant safety issue, chances are really good that proper permission was not obtained.

I've noted in another thread that, if reviewers/Groundspeak are aware that a cache could result in gross negligence, then I strongly suspect reviewers/Groundspeak would not publish that cache (or would archive it). I don't think they would expose themselves to such legal liabilities.

Edited December 26, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

Just to clarify my statement... Perhaps the guideline should be amended in the next round of revisions to state: "All local criminal laws apply." As it stands now, the guideline certainly appears to cover both criminal laws and tort laws.

Most of us already recognize it refers to criminal law.

Then you're more insightful than I.

[+Snoogans]

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

Please feel free to ignore my posts. There is even an ignore feature that will help you do that.

 

I call it like I see it. If you want to heckle then you might get treated like a heckler.

 

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.)

 

It's posts like the one above and those of you (GeoBain) and Knowschad that let me know I'm on the right track. Thank you both and most especially paleolith for strengthening my resolve.

 

I hope Groundspeak follows the examples of my 2 local and regional forums.... If they do in fact install safety forums in the coming days or weeks.

[+GeoBain]

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

Please feel free to ignore my posts. There is even an ignore feature that will help you do that.

 

I call it like I see it. If you want to heckle then you might get treated like a heckler.

 

So disagreement is considered to be heckling now?

[+Snoogans]

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

Please feel free to ignore my posts. There is even an ignore feature that will help you do that.

 

I call it like I see it. If you want to heckle then you might get treated like a heckler.

 

So disagreement is considered to be heckling now?

 

I welcome disagreement. It helps me refine my mindset and sometimes helps to completely change it.

 

Equating me to an evangelical preacher is heckling. Yes sir. That statement was pointy, had a handle, and might be good for digging. Spade called.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Snoogans

[+GeoBain]

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

Please feel free to ignore my posts. There is even an ignore feature that will help you do that.

 

I call it like I see it. If you want to heckle then you might get treated like a heckler.

 

So disagreement is considered to be heckling now?

 

I welcome disagreement. It helps me refine my mindset and sometimes helps to completely change it.

 

Equating me to an evangelical preacher is heckling. Yes sir. That statement was pointy, had a handle, and might be good for digging. Spade called.

 

You have been evangelizing. That is not heckling. That is likewise calling a spade a spade.

 

You have also been very condescending to those in disagreement and those that recognize that safety is an issue, but just not to the level you feel it is.

 

I get that you feel passionate about safety. I probably would too if it was my job to be so. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt because some of us don't feel that a major restructuring needs to take place.

 

We've always relied on cache owners to point out concerns in their listings. And most of the time they do just that.

 

I don't see the need to start a whole new safety campaign just because a relatively small sub-set of the geocaching community gets their kicks from hiding and finding caches in forbidden locations.

 

Most legitimate COs do a fine job with safety already.

[+Snoogans]

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

Please feel free to ignore my posts. There is even an ignore feature that will help you do that.

 

I call it like I see it. If you want to heckle then you might get treated like a heckler.

 

So disagreement is considered to be heckling now?

 

I welcome disagreement. It helps me refine my mindset and sometimes helps to completely change it.

 

Equating me to an evangelical preacher is heckling. Yes sir. That statement was pointy, had a handle, and might be good for digging. Spade called.

 

You have been evangelizing. That is not heckling. That is likewise calling a spade a spade.

 

You have also been very condescending to those in disagreement and those that recognize that safety is an issue, but just not to the level you feel it is.

 

I get that you feel passionate about safety. I probably would too if it was my job to be so. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt because some of us don't feel that a major restructuring needs to take place.

 

We've always relied on cache owners to point out concerns in their listings. And most of the time they do just that.

 

I don't see the need to start a whole new safety campaign just because a relatively small sub-set of the geocaching community gets their kicks from hiding and finding caches in forbidden locations.

 

Most legitimate COs do a fine job with safety already.

 

How does creating a Geocaching Safety Forum (if it ever happens here) and encouraging folks to cache smarter and safer there in equate to major restructuring? I just don't get your logic.

 

At the risk of sounding condecending, you have cows jumping over the moon. The last time I was involved in creating a forum it took all of a couple of key strokes and some typing for a title. How would it affect you if you are not interested in it?

 

I welcome anyone to look at the totality of my posts on the subject for the past week. Just go to my profile and click on see forum posts from this user.

[+GeoBain]

You speak of derision, but it is just that condescending attitude that turns me off to anything you have to say on the matter.

 

Please feel free to ignore my posts. There is even an ignore feature that will help you do that.

 

I call it like I see it. If you want to heckle then you might get treated like a heckler.

 

So disagreement is considered to be heckling now?

 

I welcome disagreement. It helps me refine my mindset and sometimes helps to completely change it.

 

Equating me to an evangelical preacher is heckling. Yes sir. That statement was pointy, had a handle, and might be good for digging. Spade called.

 

You have been evangelizing. That is not heckling. That is likewise calling a spade a spade.

 

You have also been very condescending to those in disagreement and those that recognize that safety is an issue, but just not to the level you feel it is.

 

I get that you feel passionate about safety. I probably would too if it was my job to be so. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt because some of us don't feel that a major restructuring needs to take place.

 

We've always relied on cache owners to point out concerns in their listings. And most of the time they do just that.

 

I don't see the need to start a whole new safety campaign just because a relatively small sub-set of the geocaching community gets their kicks from hiding and finding caches in forbidden locations.

 

Most legitimate COs do a fine job with safety already.

 

How does creating a Geocaching Safety Forum (if it ever happens here) and encouraging folks to cache smarter and safer there in equate to major restructuring? I just don't get your logic.

 

At the risk of sounding condecending, you have cows jumping over the moon. The last time I was involved in creating a forum it took all of a couple of key strokes and some typing for a title. How would it affect you if you are not interested in it?

 

I welcome anyone to look at the totality of my posts on the subject for the past week. Just go to my profile and click on see forum posts from this user.

 

You know what? You've given one piece of good advice that I think I will take before this turns into a pissing match. I will put you on ignore for a little while because this topic has brought out a side of you that I really don't care for. You're normally an ok guy. Maybe this will blow over and you'll get back to being forum Snoogans soon.

 

Happy Holidays Snoogans.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

How does creating a Geocaching Safety Forum (if it ever happens here) and encouraging folks to cache smarter and safer there in equate to major restructuring? I just don't get your logic.

 

The problem with having a forum for safety is simply that folks will then push for changes that will do nothing in the long run except create problems and hard feelings. It will be like those people who sit behind a desk and need to come up with ideas to show that their job is needed. I see many instances of desk jockeys coming up with changes in the way I can do my job, but these changes have no tie to how the real world works.

 

The other problem with increased safety protocols is the same problem now being discussed - People Refuse to Follow the Current Guidelines!

 

The old "Lead a Horse to Water" adage applies here.

 

John

[knowschad]

[More derision. About what I expected from the self-proclaimed King of Ego. But your ego has gotten the better of you if you think that you are the only person in this thread that I am talking about. I'm talking about the whole concept, of which you seem to be trying to make yourself the spokesman for, even to the point of suggesting a list of possible moderators for a Safety forum by linking to a thread of your own creation. Snoogans, I'm thrilled about your new career I hope that you are highly successful with it. At work. But leave it at work, OK?

 

I am not an ego maniac, but I play one on the internet. There are many geocachers in this forum that have met me and know the difference.

 

Chadperson... You are seriously paranoid if you think Groundspeak will elect me spokesperson of anything or that I would want to be.

 

Well, then, perhaps you should stop playing an egomaniac on the internet and start being the person that you claim you are. If belittling those that disagree with you and treating them with condescension is your idea of being a nice guy, then you should probably start rethinking what "nice guy" means.

 

Back to the safety issue... you've been to many events, and put many events on as well. Many of them probably had pot-luck dinners. Maybe we should start with warnings on our event pages stating that there is a good chance of getting food poisoning if you eat anything there, and that the food and cleanliness has not been inspected by the board of health. Some dished may contain allergens such as peanuts or gluten. Probably better get a lawyer to help you cover all of your bases, though, and do so in a way that doesn't actually open you up for more liability instead of less.

[+Snoogans]

How does creating a Geocaching Safety Forum (if it ever happens here) and encouraging folks to cache smarter and safer there in equate to major restructuring? I just don't get your logic.

 

The problem with having a forum for safety is simply that folks will then push for changes that will do nothing in the long run except create problems and hard feelings. It will be like those people who sit behind a desk and need to come up with ideas to show that their job is needed. I see many instances of desk jockeys coming up with changes in the way I can do my job, but these changes have no tie to how the real world works.

 

The other problem with increased safety protocols is the same problem now being discussed - People Refuse to Follow the Current Guidelines!

 

The old "Lead a Horse to Water" adage applies here.

 

John

 

John, you and I are veterans of the OT forum from day one. What was the foregone conclusion about OT before there was ever an OT forum? Was that foregone conclusion bourne out?

 

I think your foregone coclusion about a safety forum will most certainly happen. Is happening in a great many forums on this site. Nothing will change there.

 

The difference being that folks (especially new geocachers) wanting to discuss or learn about geocaching safety will have a single place to go to do so without having to pick and hunt through topics in the geocaching topics forum.

 

What you and others are forgetting is that Groundspeak has a collective mind of its own. If a change were to come from the proposed safety forum it would be because the powers that be find merit in that safety practice.

 

A safety forum will not stop someone from dying while geocaching. Deaths and serious injuries will continue to happen. BUT when the next someone dies, wouldn't it be better to say "we are trying to encourage folks to cache smarter and safer," than blaming the dead guy for diving into the (geocaching) pool without checking for rocks just below the surface?

 

Here's my foregone conclusion: Encouraging cachers to think about and discuss geocaching safety matters WILL save lives and reduce the frequency and severity of geocaching injuries in the long term.

 

We may never know who or how because the effects of trying to raise the awareness for safety are mostly intangible in the short term. It would certainly be smart for Groundspeak to openly endorse geocaching safety as a core value before the next person dies while geocaching. Especially if that death is as easily preventable as Willimax's was.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Snoogans

[+niraD]

The problem with having a forum for safety is simply that folks will then push for changes that will do nothing in the long run except create problems and hard feelings.

Good point. I was thinking that such a forum would merely be useless. Those who would follow a safety forum would be the ones who are already interested in safety. Everyone else—including those who "should" be more concerned about safety—would simply ignore the forum, the way I ignore many of the existing forums.

[+GeoBain]

The problem with having a forum for safety is simply that folks will then push for changes that will do nothing in the long run except create problems and hard feelings.

Good point. I was thinking that such a forum would merely be useless. Those who would follow a safety forum would be the ones who are already interested in safety. Everyone else—including those who "should" be more concerned about safety—would simply ignore the forum, the way I ignore many of the existing forums.

 

And the net result would be that those following the rules/guidelines wind up with more red tape and those that ignore the guidelines continue to ignore the guidelines.

[+Snoogans]

The problem with having a forum for safety is simply that folks will then push for changes that will do nothing in the long run except create problems and hard feelings.

Good point. I was thinking that such a forum would merely be useless. Those who would follow a safety forum would be the ones who are already interested in safety. Everyone else—including those who "should" be more concerned about safety—would simply ignore the forum, the way I ignore many of the existing forums.

 

And the net result would be that those following the rules/guidelines wind up with more red tape and those that ignore the guidelines continue to ignore the guidelines.

 

What is the current red tape? And what is the more red tape that you foresee?

[+SwineFlew]

I saw this today and thought of this thread.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

SwineFlew I'm glad you posted that picture. I just did a search for other Geocaching deaths and found that most of them had one thing in common. Each person either fell, tripped or slipped in an environment where (I believe) they thought it was safe. It is impossible to create rules or guidelines to stop people from stepping in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sure that all of us have stories about how we or someone we know did something stupid and either fell, tripped or slipped while caching. The only difference is that in these few cases the story has a sad ending.

 

I knew someone that had some "boating" experience and he use to say, "You have two hands, one for yourself and one for the ship". In other words even though you have work to do, keep yourself safe even if you have to hang onto something. And of course a lot of us have heard about the "Ten Essentials" for hiking. For those that want caching to be safer and for everyone to be more careful, then come up with a simple little phrase or a few easy points that we can remember.

 

Being a fan of science fiction, I have heard and read a lot of great quotes. Here are two quotes (of many) that I like, from one of the best science fiction writers, Robert A. Heinlein:

 

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Time Enough for Love

 

"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

 

Tobias

[+GeoBain]

"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

 

That's a quote I will hang onto.

[+B+L]

"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

Interesting juxtaposition with the archive log of the Tanzstunde cache.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

Here's my foregone conclusion: Encouraging cachers to think about and discuss geocaching safety matters WILL save lives and reduce the frequency and severity of geocaching injuries in the long term.

 

We may never know who or how because the effects of trying to raise the awareness for safety are mostly intangible in the short term. It would certainly be smart for Groundspeak to openly endorse geocaching safety as a core value before the next person dies while geocaching. Especially if that death is as easily preventable as Willimax's was.

 

+1 At my workplace, there is alot of focus on safety and lot of training provided, both for the workers and the clients.

 

I can tell you safety education DOES work. And if 1 person's life is saved, it's worth it.

 

Yes, people are still ultimately responsible for themselves. However, lets give them information and encouragement to geocache as safely as possible.

 

Raising awareness of this important issue is the RIGHT thing to do.

Edited December 27, 2011 by The_Incredibles_

[+JesandTodd]

I saw this today and thought of this thread.

 

I actually thought the posting of that cartoon was tacky and in very poor taste. Does anybody have a soul anymore?? A kid fell to his death, and his family may be reading this forum, and you post a cartoon mocking it?

 

Wow.

 

This cache encouraged people to come at night. It had a KNOWN piece of the floor missing.. Someone fell and died.

 

A warning log is NOT a restructuring of the whole website. Please. This isn't a slip, or fall, poison ivy, or bugs...it wasnt a NORMAL expected part of our geocaching adventures. It was a hole large enough to kill someone..and it did.

 

And we post cartoons about it. Disgusting..

 

Sleep well

 

.

Edited December 27, 2011 by JesandTodd

[diggingest_dogg616]

First, I have to send my condolences to the young man's family, friends, and community. That's really tragic

 

There are a lot of sentiments I agree with in this thread.

 

I agree that education safety is important. Like The Incredibles, I work in an environment where you need to know what you are doing, or you could be hurt very badly. When I've had high school students do work based study, I try to have them do what they can SAFELY do. If there's any question, we don't do it. They can watch. If they feel comfortable, then they don't need to do it, but they can watch. If it is safe for them to do something, I teach them the correct way to do it anyways so we're all on the same page. There are a lot of accidents that are just plain unacceptable and can be avoided. I'm not talking paper cuts or running into the door frame, but serious injuries that just didn't need to happen.

 

I don't think we need a safety course in geocaching. I don't think we need safety equipment unless the specific requires it (rapelling, if you're camping or out in the middle of nowhere). We don't need to pad sharp corners and have our hands held. However, we need to help each other as well as help ourselves. I haven't done a lot of caching, but I've made myself a list of caches I'd like to find. I help myself by reading the description, looking at the terrain rating, and reading some of the logs if it seems like it may be difficult to get to. I use google maps to look at the terrain. If it's up on top of Poison Spider Mesa, then I'm probably not going to it. I don't have a jeep, can't mountain bike worth anything, and I don't think I'm in good enough to hike it (and I don't really want to hike it either).

 

Others help by having an accurate description. Oh, you have this cache up on hill? But you've neglected to say you have scramble up a steep exposure of slickrock and there's a rather high cliff? Thanks. I don't need every little spelled out, but I'd like to know if maybe it's kinda scary and then I'll decide if I'm brave enough. I'll check out the logs and if others mention cliffs or overhangs or hardcore scrambling, then I'll take note and decide.

 

I also agree with the sentiment that there are inherent dangers and you need to be alert. Hiking around, I've done some things that some people think are really cool and other people thought was ridiculous. Again, nothing needs to be spelled out and I don't need my hand held, but I certainly don't wanna be left out to dry.

 

I know there are a lot of subjective things in this game. What's a 3.5 difficulty terrain to me can be a 1.5 to someone else. "Strenuous hiking" is someone else's "moderate". All we can do is give the best *objective* information we can and then actually look at the information we're provided with.

 

I've edited this part as I had some more information come to light. If there was a piece of floor missing and this was a cache that was to supposed to have been okay to do at night, then that's a problem. I was at first under the impression that first this was just a freak accident sort of incident as I had read that others had problems with their footing, but did okay. If the floor isn't there and you can't see it, then that's a big issue. I think this is the sort of thing that can be prevented from happening and should never have to happen.

I apologize for the length of this post.

Edited December 27, 2011 by diggingest_dogg616

[+GeoBain]

This isn't a slip, or fall, poison ivy, or bugs...it wasnt a NORMAL expected part of our geocaching adventures. It was a hole large enough to kill someone..and it did.

 

It was also in violation of the guidelines by being placed in an area off limits to the general public.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

First - Look around and be aware of your surroundings. Second - Listen for unusual sounds (in otherwords, do not have on a pair of earphones!). Third - Stop often and get your bearings, glance back the way you have come to note the way back or set a waypoint at your vehicle so you can get back. Forth - Walk slowly! Do not rush, enjoy the adventure.

 

So, "Look, Listen, Stop, Slow." We have LLSS - everyone loves to have these silly capital letters for everything else. Why not for being a wise and careful Geocacher?

 

This also pertains to almost anything you would do outdoors - think about it.......

 

Just my thoughts, take em' or leave em'.

 

Shirley~

[+GeoBain]

First - Look around and be aware of your surroundings. Second - Listen for unusual sounds (in otherwords, do not have on a pair of earphones!). Third - Stop often and get your bearings, glance back the way you have come to note the way back or set a waypoint at your vehicle so you can get back. Forth - Walk slowly! Do not rush, enjoy the adventure.

 

So, "Look, Listen, Stop, Slow." We have LLSS - everyone loves to have these silly capital letters for everything else. Why not for being a wise and careful Geocacher?

 

This also pertains to almost anything you would do outdoors - think about it.......

 

Just my thoughts, take em' or leave em'.

 

Shirley~

 

We could also use QBTL.

 

(Quit Breaking The Law)

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

First - Look around and be aware of your surroundings. Second - Listen for unusual sounds (in otherwords, do not have on a pair of earphones!). Third - Stop often and get your bearings, glance back the way you have come to note the way back or set a waypoint at your vehicle so you can get back. Forth - Walk slowly! Do not rush, enjoy the adventure.

 

So, "Look, Listen, Stop, Slow." We have LLSS - everyone loves to have these silly capital letters for everything else. Why not for being a wise and careful Geocacher?

 

This also pertains to almost anything you would do outdoors - think about it.......

 

Just my thoughts, take em' or leave em'.

 

Shirley~

 

We could also use QBTL.

 

(Quit Breaking The Law)

Oh Yes! Or SIC = Stop Illegal Caches

[+The_Incredibles_]

This may have been posted already, but here is the newspaper article and also quote from the cache page. No warnings about the missing section. This is not your normal slip and fall and was totally preventable.

 

The box is good at day and at night to reach. I recommend to make however it for you at the night, because the Muggel is very active on the day.

 

Edited December 27, 2011 by The_Incredibles_

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

This may have been posted already, but here is the newspaper article and also quote from the cache page. No warnings about the missing section. This is not your normal slip and fall and was totally preventable.

 

Google translation of the hint into English:

 

"Fixing pipe right before the gap".

 

Not a warning, but it was mentioned.

[+Snoogans]

...

Edited December 27, 2011 by Snoogans

[+Snoogans]

This may have been posted already, but here is the newspaper article and also quote from the cache page. No warnings about the missing section. This is not your normal slip and fall and was totally preventable.

 

The box is good at day and at night to reach. I recommend to make however it for you at the night, because the Muggel is very active on the day.

 

 

I'm reposting the translated text and individual photos. They were posted about 10 thread pages ago and probably need a repost.

 

The images:

note the missing grille:

 

Google translation (I can add my own later)

 

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

(Saxon newspaper)

 

PIRNA

 

Number 4900 led to his death

Florian Thalmann and Anna Hoben

In the past week fell Willi H. (21) from a bridge in Pirna. He was on his way to find a treasure.

Gallery

I cried the whole weekend, "said Dominika Urban. The 27-year-old radiographer from Dresden kneels on the banks of the Gottleuba in Pirna, lights candles and flowers attached to the bars of a wire mesh fence. Also, there are photographs, pictures of a young man.

 

It is the 21-year-old Dresdner Willi H., who was found dead last Thursday of passers in the Gottleuba. Firefighters hid his body. Now it is: The student was on a treasure hunt. For over six years, worked with the Dresden "geocaching," a sort of modern scavenger hunt. According to present knowledge, the accident happened, would pose as Willi H. at a district near the B172 bridge called a cache, a hidden treasure. He parked his white Opel Corsa to a nearby parking lot and climbed onto the bridge. Wanted to search for the treasure, a small tube with a kind of summit book, which enter into the young man, he fell from the bridge, six meters in depth.

 

No entry sign

 

According to the present state of investigations, the Prosecutor's assume that Willi fell through a hole in the bottom of the bridge because the bridge was missing on a grille. "He probably hit his head on a rock. After that he is still moving a few meters towards the embankment, "said prosecutor Andrew Feron (49). There he succumbed to his injuries. It was not until many hours after the accident, his body was discovered. At the accident site, police found two pens, a flashlight, a cell phone, car keys - and a GPS device, use it as the modern treasure hunters.

 

"Unfortunately, there is no sign at the bridge, to where it says that access is forbidden," says Svetlana Irmscher, spokeswoman for the Stadtwerke Pirna. "The heating pipe is an operating system of the city, for the unauthorized access is prohibited." The bar next to the pipes of the heating cable is intended solely for maintenance and only accessible via a locked door. Probably already have a previous visitor had broken open the hatch.

 

In the Saxon geocaching scene caused much consternation from the case. At an impromptu meeting on Sunday at the Dresden Zwinger conceived around 200 geocachers Willi H., "I knew Willy, have seen him when we met again and again," said Dominika Urban. He was a fixture on the scene was a pro. In recent years, he hid himself over 100 caches for other treasure hunters. He had been found 4899th "In Dresden, he was thus in the first place, second place in the whole of Saxony," says Dominika Urban. "His goal was to reach the 5000th It is quite possible that he has done so much pressure that it was his ambition to doom. "

 

Also, users of the internet forum "geocaching.com" promptly responded to the news of Willis's tragic death. In the forum all the hiding places in Germany for amateur treasure hunters have captured. Only one user on Nov 10, had filed the forum attached to the bridge of treasure with the name "Dance Lesson". On the Internet, he had registered the geographic coordinates so other geocachers could go in search of the tube. "After an accident, we are not morally possible to operate this cache," commented the author of last Friday.

 

Because: Possibly wearing a description of the hiding place in the tragedy. The forum will be pointed out that it was better to seek the treasure of the night. On the day were on their way to the bridge to many people.

 

"That was a big mistake," said Dominika Urban, who is himself in five years than in Saxony Geocacherin go. "It is indeed easy on the bridge, the terrain is not difficult to discover." Of the five levels of difficulty is the Gottleuba Bridge a good "three" was. Previously had been over 25 treasure hunters registered in the booklet. "But Willy was traveling alone, and it was already dark."

 

A dangerous hobby

 

Other members of the scene expressed their condolences on the Internet. "I always knew someday happened a great misfortune," writes one user. And further: "The death of Willi makes us all very concerned. It makes me shudder and think, what crazy things I've done that in my life and especially in the hobby. "

Edited December 27, 2011 by Snoogans

[+Snoogans]

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

 

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

 

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

2. Off limits signage was missing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. The accident appears to have happened at night.

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

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

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

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

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

19. Willi was 21yo when he died.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Snoogans

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

From http://en.wikipedia....ng_at_windmills

 

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. The word "tilt", in this context, comes from jousting.

 

The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications.

Edited December 27, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler