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

[+GeoBain]

1) NA logs should become anonymous. It is apparent that in some areas the local community is very abusive and maybe even threatening to people who post legitimate NA logs

2) NA logs should not be able to be deleted by the CO. Let the reviewers have the ability and if the log is truly bogus it can be deleted afterwards.

3) If the local reviewers are too afraid of opinion to do their job and archive caches that are illegal then GS needs to find new reviewers.

 

Groundspeak guidelines do NOT address safety. They however do address trespassing. There is a huge difference of not getting explicit permission to place a simple straight forward cache in a park and this one that looks to be placed in a spot that no one (outside the employees) should go. I have done extreme caches, but I would never do something like this by myself at night and in a spot that is clearly off limits to anyone. It's sad that 30+ finders did nothing and that speaks to a larger local problem.

 

+10

[+Snoogans]

My personal idea/opinion is to add a new section to every cache: "Warnings:" where specific warnings can be added to not only by the cache owner but by every cacher. A boiler plate warning just doesnt do since most of us would quickly glance over it soon.

While this event is sad, I don't see any action needed in the general sense.

People often over-estimate their abilities. People often are thinking of other things. People often aren't even thinking/looking at all. Stuff happens. That's why it's called an accident.

 

The fact that the fellow is reported to have been caching at the time is a mere detail. The general problem is that in caching, like in doing anything else, you need to be aware of your surroundings and the associated risks. Just as you can fall off a bridge, you can fall out of a tree, or step in a hole, or walk backwards into traffic, or the like. That's why you teach your children to look both ways before crossing the street.

 

I don't see any action required here.

 

There is no organized standard of care for the finder of a geocache. Here's our (Groundspeak's) disclaimer. Swim at your own risk.... And that worked for 10 years. I seriously doubt that attitude will fly over the Mainstream Event Horizon.

 

What has changed is the growth rate of listed caches and new cachers. With that we have an increased frequency of deaths.

 

3 deaths from 2003 to November of 2009. The 3rd being on the cusp of the 1 million listed caches mark.

 

We hit a million and bound wayyy past it and boom, 2 deaths just 5 months apart and this last death was easily prevented.

 

At some point we as a community need to sit up and take notice and reflect... Is swim at your own risk really the best policy?

 

Can't we DO something to educate or at least address the issue of safety? Or is it sombody else's problem?

 

If folks aren't reading the cache pages to get safety info, how do we reach them?

 

The most recent frequency in geocaching deaths is 5 months. Heinrich's Law applies. I would almost expect at least one more death in the next 12 months.

 

I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm not, what could have been done to try to prevent that next geocaching death especially if it is due to a cache that shouldn't have been posted in the first place as in the case of Willimax's death?

 

Facts

 

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

#2 It passed review and was published.

#3 34 finders either didn't know to report it, didn't care to report it, or were afraid to report it. Mix and match.

#4 Willimax chose to go there alone, at night, and died hunting it. He was 21yo.

 

Off the top of my head, I see close to 40 proactive ways his death could have been prevented just from those 4 facts. Now ask yourself this..... Is it really okay to be hearing over and over, eh it was his choice....? Certainly, the final steps were his.... But there are at least 36 ways that he could have never had the chance to make that choice.

 

I am not assigning blame. I will leave that up to the local authorities. What I am saying is that in an established geocaching culture of safety Willi MIGHT NOT have died. He was 21 years old. That keeps going over and over in my mind. He was 21yo.

 

The preceeding response is cobbled together from 2 posts in a different forum for those that just experienced deja vu.

 

I think I can sum up my lengthy post above on 1 word..... Stewardship.

[+Snoogans]

1) NA logs should become anonymous. It is apparent that in some areas the local community is very abusive and maybe even threatening to people who post legitimate NA logs

2) NA logs should not be able to be deleted by the CO. Let the reviewers have the ability and if the log is truly bogus it can be deleted afterwards.

3) If the local reviewers are too afraid of opinion to do their job and archive caches that are illegal then GS needs to find new reviewers.

 

Groundspeak guidelines do NOT address safety. They however do address trespassing. There is a huge difference of not getting explicit permission to place a simple straight forward cache in a park and this one that looks to be placed in a spot that no one (outside the employees) should go. I have done extreme caches, but I would never do something like this by myself at night and in a spot that is clearly off limits to anyone. It's sad that 30+ finders did nothing and that speaks to a larger local problem.

 

+10

 

I agree and not for the first time.

[+t4e]

 

- give cachers better tools to meet at a cache so they are not there alone

 

 

i am not quite getting this point

 

Just an idea I threw out there in post #172 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4924638

 

give me an example of what you mean, i just can't think of anything useful beyond regular contact

[veit]

Groundspeak guidelines do NOT address safety.

 

I'm glad I started this thread. I wasn't even aware of that. Why not? Why not address safety in the guidelines? Something along the lines: "Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!" Or similar. Might possibly have gotten this owner thinking. If we want to take steps towards a more safety-oriented caching culture, this seems like a good step. I just checked the guidelines and we make sure that Wildlife is not harmed, but warnings about bringing harm upon fellow cachers? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Edited December 21, 2011 by veit

[+GeoBain]

Groundspeak guidelines do NOT address safety.

 

I'm glad I started this thread. I wasn't even aware of that. Why not? Why not address safety in the guidelines? Something along the lines: "Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!" Or similar. Might possibly have gotten this owner thinking. If we want to take steps towards a more safety-oriented caching culture, this seems like a good step. I just checked the guidelines and we make sure that Wildlife is not harmed, but warnings about bringing harm upon fellow cachers? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Did you catch that first part?

 

1. All local laws apply.

[veit]

 

- give cachers better tools to meet at a cache so they are not there alone

 

 

i am not quite getting this point

 

Just an idea I threw out there in post #172 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4924638

 

give me an example of what you mean, i just can't think of anything useful beyond regular contact

 

For example a simple link in the cache listing: "I want to do this cache, but not alone"...which then maybe prompts you to enter your mobile, time you are available, agreement that your cacher name/phone number is forwarded when someone else comes onboard. When someone else sees the listing they might see: "1 cacher waiting to do this cache together". Something along those lines. Heck, thinking about it, it might even be possible to use something like this for owners/cachers living nearby to go out into the field every now and then when someone is at their cache/needs help (I know it happens informally anyway, but could be standardized on the site).

[veit]

Groundspeak guidelines do NOT address safety.

 

I'm glad I started this thread. I wasn't even aware of that. Why not? Why not address safety in the guidelines? Something along the lines: "Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!" Or similar. Might possibly have gotten this owner thinking. If we want to take steps towards a more safety-oriented caching culture, this seems like a good step. I just checked the guidelines and we make sure that Wildlife is not harmed, but warnings about bringing harm upon fellow cachers? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Did you catch that first part?

 

1. All local laws apply.

 

German local laws don't address safety when placing geocaches as far as I'm aware. Do they in your part of the world?

[+SwineFlew]

Groundspeak guidelines do NOT address safety.

 

I'm glad I started this thread. I wasn't even aware of that. Why not? Why not address safety in the guidelines? Something along the lines: "Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!" Or similar. Might possibly have gotten this owner thinking. If we want to take steps towards a more safety-oriented caching culture, this seems like a good step. I just checked the guidelines and we make sure that Wildlife is not harmed, but warnings about bringing harm upon fellow cachers? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Did you catch that first part?

 

1. All local laws apply.

 

German local laws don't address safety when placing geocaches as far as I'm aware. Do they in your part of the world?

 

No, you are reading it wrong. Local laws got nothing to do with geocaching. If the local laws said to keep off the catwalk...that mean by GS guideline that you arent to place a cache there.

[+edscott]

Yes an unfortunate accident, but I don't see any clear way for Groundspeak or cache owners to prevent unfortunate accidents. I've walked away from a few caches.. a couple of them were temptingly close and visible... when I felt uncomfortable about what was required in order to retrieve the box. But a fall in a rock field, wading a shallow stream, or standing by a guard rail at a busy intersection could just as easily become a deadly situation. I do think the cache page should contain enough data for people to make a fair assessment of the situation prior to attempting the cache. After investing some time on getting to a cache there is that natural desire to finish the job.. The "don't be a quitter" mentality can overcome good sense.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Also, a tidbit maybe: one of the guys who did the cache before Willi posted online that he's convinced that the city authorities removed that one grille so people wouldn't use this bridge as a regular crossing. There wasn't anything about that in the article, but it does seem very plausible. So they would be another party that played their little role in the making of this tragedy.

 

So the authorities did something to prevent people from using something as a bridge (something it was not intended for) so they had some role in the tragedy? I don't follow the logic.

 

I follow the logic. But what it says to me is that the log should have been a Needs Archive instead of a note.

 

Can you explain it to me then?

 

The intentional removal of the grid (if it really happened) in order to prevent the public from using it as a bridge would open them up to liability. At the very least it would make them partially responsible. Rather than remove the grid they could have secured the hatch better.

 

 

This is just like telephone poles, where there are no lower posts/rungs. If a person climbs that pole (however they do it) I don't see the local utility company having any liability.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

"Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!"

 

My listing would double or triple in size.

 

"There are rocks you have to avoid. It's a long hike so bring plenty of water. There may be mosquitoes and ticks....ad nauseum."

 

People go out hiking in the great big wild woods all the time, and there's no website dedicated to providing warnings to them. People use common sense. Yes, people get injured or killed. And sometimes it's their own fault.

[veit]

Updated with suggestions to make NA logs anonymous and undeletable, guidelines to include safety.

 

List of suggestions for changes to the geocaching features/culture to prevent more injuries or deaths from happening:

 

- every individual cacher should be more aware of the risks he is taking. Ultimately it is his or her responsability if he goes for a cache. There have been suggestions how this general awareness can be heightened: a new Forum category Safety, as well as a global communication campaign by the platform.

- generally place more emphasis in the community on safety rather than on find-counts (here we can all play our part, but again, global communication might help/nurture such a culture change). This includes making sure cachers don't get ridiculed if they post valid safety concerns in logs.

- place more emphasis on safety rather than avoidance of being seen by muggles (for fear of them calling authorities or stealing caches). Plastic containers can be replaced, lifes cannot.

- caches not to be placed in "illegal locations". The many existing ones to be archived. This can be achieved by Groundspeak on a global scale (database query, mail to all reviewers to take action) and on a local scale (encouraging everyone to use NA logs on existing caches). It can also be achieved by non-local geocachers posting NA logs if they become aware of illegal or dangerous caches, although there is debate whether this is seen as interference from afar and might offend local communities.

- improvements to the treatment of NA logs by reviewers (example was the case of a dangerous cache in Austria that has had a NA log since 2009 without anything happening other than the poster being ridiculed). More oversight/support by GS if local reviewers are unable/unwilling to archive caches due to peer pressure.

- making NA logs anonymous and undeletable by CO (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4926235)

- cachers to have better tools to warn other cachers of dangers than the currently existing mix of cache description and attributes by CO, and normal logs+NM/NA logs+emails to reviewers+GS by finders. Possibly a new Warnings logtype. Or a wiki-like editable warnings section where any cacher can point out dangers.

- an anonymous "report cache" button for every cache to circumvent local peer pressure

- owners to be encouraged to think twice about possible dangers with their cache when publishing a cache and to correctly list those (even if it means spoilering). All current COs could be sent an email by GS to revisit their cache pages and update them about dangers (something that has already happened locally, I'm starting to see caches being archived and updated). Including safety in the main cache guidelines (along the lines of "Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!") (http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx).

- give cachers better tools to meet at a cache so they are not there alone (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4924638)

 

Let me know what I missed and I'll add it.

Edited December 21, 2011 by veit

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

What has changed is the growth rate of listed caches and new cachers. With that we have an increased frequency of deaths.

 

3 deaths from 2003 to November of 2009. The 3rd being on the cusp of the 1 million listed caches mark.

 

We hit a million and bound wayyy past it and boom, 2 deaths just 5 months apart and this last death was easily prevented.

 

At some point we as a community need to sit up and take notice and reflect... Is swim at your own risk really the best policy?

 

Can't we DO something to educate or at least address the issue of safety? Or is it sombody else's problem?

 

If folks aren't reading the cache pages to get safety info, how do we reach them?

 

The most recent frequency in geocaching deaths is 5 months. Heinrich's Law applies. I would almost expect at least one more death in the next 12 months.

 

I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm not, what could have been done to try to prevent that next geocaching death especially if it is due to a cache that shouldn't have been posted in the first place as in the case of Willimax's death?

 

 

Frequency is the wrong measure. Deaths per 1,000,000 caches or per 1,000,000 cache attempts should be calculated. More caches and cachers will lead to more incidences just be the shear fact there are more people out there.

 

According to the numbers you're using, we had 3 deaths in 6 years. Then we had an additional two in two years. Just looking at those two facts, the rate goes from 1 death every 2 years to 1 death every year (double the rate). However if you look at a different set of numbers you get something else: the first three were during the first 1M caches. The next two were from the next 600K caches. Both groupings show 1 death for each ~300K caches placed. One could say there's no change in the rates. And I bet if you look at deaths per 1M cachers, or 1M cache logs or some other measure, the death rate is probably dropping!

[veit]

... the death rate is probably dropping!

 

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

[+fizzymagic]

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

 

It turns out that it is trivial to reduce the number of avoidable geocaching deaths to zero. Just ban geocaching.

 

Every human activity carries risks with it. Reducing needless deaths is important, but safety always comes at a cost. Those who claim safety can be improved for zero cost are either ignorant or lying. It is a mathematical fact that the only way to bring the number of deaths from an activity to zero is to not do the activity.

 

That's why it is important to not implement new safety features based on what we think will make things safer. It is far preferable to use techniques that have been proven to improve safety. Your call for a new log type, for example, comes from an emotional need to do something, but I doubt it would have a measurable impact on safety.

 

Perhaps the biggest cost of an over-emphasis on safety at all costs is that geocaching would lose its essential nature. Part of the allure, at least for me, is the promise of adventure and a little bit of danger. That's why geocaching.com has wisely chosen to leave it up to the individual cacher to use his or her judgment to evaluate the risk level they find appropriate once on-site.

[+NicknPapa]

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

 

It turns out that it is trivial to reduce the number of avoidable geocaching deaths to zero. Just ban geocaching.

 

Every human activity carries risks with it. Reducing needless deaths is important, but safety always comes at a cost. Those who claim safety can be improved for zero cost are either ignorant or lying. It is a mathematical fact that the only way to bring the number of deaths from an activity to zero is to not do the activity.

 

That's why it is important to not implement new safety features based on what we think will make things safer. It is far preferable to use techniques that have been proven to improve safety. Your call for a new log type, for example, comes from an emotional need to do something, but I doubt it would have a measurable impact on safety.

 

Perhaps the biggest cost of an over-emphasis on safety at all costs is that geocaching would lose its essential nature. Part of the allure, at least for me, is the promise of adventure and a little bit of danger. That's why geocaching.com has wisely chosen to leave it up to the individual cacher to use his or her judgment to evaluate the risk level they find appropriate once on-site.

 

I agree with Fizzymagic. While it is tragic that someone lost their life imposing more rules will not reduce the risk of the same thing happening again. Frankly, I don't understand people's need to impose restrictions on other people "for their own good." As long as I don't endanger anyone else the risks I take with my life are my business and no one else should have any say in the matter.

As an aside, I feel much more in danger while driving to the cache that I ever have when I start the search.

[+GeoBain]

Groundspeak guidelines do NOT address safety.

 

I'm glad I started this thread. I wasn't even aware of that. Why not? Why not address safety in the guidelines? Something along the lines: "Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!" Or similar. Might possibly have gotten this owner thinking. If we want to take steps towards a more safety-oriented caching culture, this seems like a good step. I just checked the guidelines and we make sure that Wildlife is not harmed, but warnings about bringing harm upon fellow cachers? http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Did you catch that first part?

 

1. All local laws apply.

 

German local laws don't address safety when placing geocaches as far as I'm aware. Do they in your part of the world?

 

But I'm pretty sure they address tresspassing.

[+GeoBain]

Also, a tidbit maybe: one of the guys who did the cache before Willi posted online that he's convinced that the city authorities removed that one grille so people wouldn't use this bridge as a regular crossing. There wasn't anything about that in the article, but it does seem very plausible. So they would be another party that played their little role in the making of this tragedy.

 

So the authorities did something to prevent people from using something as a bridge (something it was not intended for) so they had some role in the tragedy? I don't follow the logic.

 

I follow the logic. But what it says to me is that the log should have been a Needs Archive instead of a note.

 

Can you explain it to me then?

 

The intentional removal of the grid (if it really happened) in order to prevent the public from using it as a bridge would open them up to liability. At the very least it would make them partially responsible. Rather than remove the grid they could have secured the hatch better.

 

 

This is just like telephone poles, where there are no lower posts/rungs. If a person climbs that pole (however they do it) I don't see the local utility company having any liability.

 

Not quite, but I do follow your logic as well.

[+GeoBain]

... the death rate is probably dropping!

 

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

 

Great idea. Why don't we start by changing community attitudes towards improperly placed caches. And, if needed, work on replacing any local reviewers that may be caught up in the local community attitudes toward improperly placed caches.

 

Fix that. Then, if you still see people getting killed seeking geocaches, let's talk about revamping the system.

 

But until the local community is willing to work within the current rules/guidelines, I don't see a need to add to that system.

[+Chokecherry]

All caches no matter how benign they are could potentially lead a person into danger which is why ground speak clearly states at least on their app that geocaching is dangerous and you do so at your own risk.

 

What is safer for me to do here could be life threatening if someone is not familiar with the terrain. What is safe for others else where could be very dangerous for me if I'm not familiar with the terrain.

 

Safety is on a person to person basis. You'd have to ban the hobby altogether to make it perfectly safe and again people finding caches have to have some ownership over their own well being.

[+Chokecherry]

... the death rate is probably dropping!

 

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

 

Great idea. Why don't we start by changing community attitudes towards improperly placed caches. And, if needed, work on replacing any local reviewers that may be caught up in the local community attitudes toward improperly placed caches.

 

Fix that. Then, if you still see people getting killed seeking geocaches, let's talk about revamping the system.

 

But until the local community is willing to work within the current rules/guidelines, I don't see a need to add to that system.

 

I totally agree with this. The apathy in the community where this happened and the reviewer's hesitation to not archive caches outside of the guidelines needs to be addressed first before coming up with a global solution to safety. There were clear reasons why this individual died. Address those issues first and then look at safety.

 

If one is not willing to work with their local community to change these attitudes this is all a moot point. Fix your stuff locally and then lets look at the global issues.

[+GeoBain]

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

 

It turns out that it is trivial to reduce the number of avoidable geocaching deaths to zero. Just ban geocaching.

 

Every human activity carries risks with it. Reducing needless deaths is important, but safety always comes at a cost. Those who claim safety can be improved for zero cost are either ignorant or lying. It is a mathematical fact that the only way to bring the number of deaths from an activity to zero is to not do the activity.

 

That's why it is important to not implement new safety features based on what we think will make things safer. It is far preferable to use techniques that have been proven to improve safety. Your call for a new log type, for example, comes from an emotional need to do something, but I doubt it would have a measurable impact on safety.

 

Perhaps the biggest cost of an over-emphasis on safety at all costs is that geocaching would lose its essential nature. Part of the allure, at least for me, is the promise of adventure and a little bit of danger. That's why geocaching.com has wisely chosen to leave it up to the individual cacher to use his or her judgment to evaluate the risk level they find appropriate once on-site.

 

Reminds me of a book I read many years ago, "The humanoids."

 

The basic premise of the book is someone creates humanoid beings to protect humans from harm. They take this directive literally to the point that humans become prisoners. They are not allowed to do anything because any activity could cause harm. Those that resist are drugged into compliance.

 

I, for one, do not wish to live in a nanny state. I would rather CO's publish caches that are withing the guidelines and that they voluntarily put any warnings they feel necessary into their descriptions. Beyond that I feel it is my responsibility to assess each and every cache I attempt.

 

If I don't feel I am authorized to be in the location, I will turn back. If I feel it is beyond my abilities, I will turn back.

 

If I get my wheels stuck in mud and can't get out, I'm not going to be blessing out the CO as I crawl back to the van. I'm gonna be blessing myself out for doing such a stupid thing.

[4wheelin_fool]

The fact remains that the cache is in violation of the guidelines, as well as violation of local law and should not have been published.

 

It's interesting that the disclaimer is often cited to be read, but the part about trespassing is openly ignored.

 

 

This tragedy could have been prevented.

[cezanne]

Perhaps the biggest cost of an over-emphasis on safety at all costs is that geocaching would lose its essential nature. Part of the allure, at least for me, is the promise of adventure and a little bit of danger. That's why geocaching.com has wisely chosen to leave it up to the individual cacher to use his or her judgment to evaluate the risk level they find appropriate once on-site.

 

I think that no approach which only looks at one aspect and ignores all others will work out well. Like an over-emphasis on safety at all costs is nothing I would appreciate, I am even more scared about an over-emphasis on the adventure and danger aspect at all costs. It is the adventure and danger aspect that makes caches at locations one is not supposed to visit so attractive to many cachers. So where is the borderline to draw?

In some boring urban areas the typical approach to come up with caches offering adventures and dangers is to lead to locations where people are not supposed to go. In a remote region, or in regions with mountains, deserts, wild creeks or other interesting outdoor challenges this will certainly be different.

 

What about if a cacher does not evaluate the risk correctly and gets seriously injured or even dies at a cache location where access is not allowed, but possible? I think that a certain number of such incidents are much more likely to lead to a ban of geocaching than any form of requests for safety measures within the geocaching community.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited December 21, 2011 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

The intentional removal of the grid (if it really happened) in order to prevent the public from using it as a bridge would open them up to liability. At the very least it would make them partially responsible. Rather than remove the grid they could have secured the hatch better.

This is just like telephone poles, where there are no lower posts/rungs. If a person climbs that pole (however they do it) I don't see the local utility company having any liability.

No. Locking the access hatch to the bridge's ladder is the equivalent of having no lower posts/rungs on a telephone pole. Both actions decrease the chances of people getting into dangerous situations. This reduces their liability.

 

The telephone pole equivalent to removing one of the bridge's walking grids would be running high-voltage current through some of the higher posts/rungs. Both these actions increase the likelihood of someone getting severely injured or killed after they already are in dangerous situations. This increases their liability.

[+CanadianRockies]

What is safer for me to do here could be life threatening if someone is not familiar with the terrain. What is safe for others else where could be very dangerous for me if I'm not familiar with the terrain.

 

Safety is on a person to person basis. You'd have to ban the hobby altogether to make it perfectly safe and again people finding caches have to have some ownership over their own well being.

People realize that geocaching, like so many other activities, involves some inherent risks. Nobody is advocating that we should reduce those dangers to zero.

 

What some people are suggesting is it would be nice to educate geocachers about risks that they might not know about. Some geocachers, for example, might not know that hunting is allowed in the area around a particular cache. Other geocachers might not know that bears frequent the area.

 

I might decide to take certain risks when I search for a cache. I'd just prefer to make informed decisions.

[+JesandTodd]

 

"There are rocks you have to avoid. It's a long hike so bring plenty of water. There may be mosquitoes and ticks....ad nauseum.".

 

There is a big difference between rocks and Mosquitos and a Grate MISSING from a bridge that is recommended to be crossed at night!!

 

C'mon now, You know this.

[+BlueDeuce]

Maybe this will help- Some of you be careful, others can take a long walk.

 

Yes, there is a balance to actually educate people who sometimes need nothing more than a reminder. My wife is one of those - You should just know better - type of people. I remind her of that every time she needs my help. She reminds me that I should know better every time I need her help.

Edited December 22, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+Chokecherry]

What is safer for me to do here could be life threatening if someone is not familiar with the terrain. What is safe for others else where could be very dangerous for me if I'm not familiar with the terrain.

 

Safety is on a person to person basis. You'd have to ban the hobby altogether to make it perfectly safe and again people finding caches have to have some ownership over their own well being.

People realize that geocaching, like so many other activities, involves some inherent risks. Nobody is advocating that we should reduce those dangers to zero.

 

What some people are suggesting is it would be nice to educate geocachers about risks that they might not know about. Some geocachers, for example, might not know that hunting is allowed in the area around a particular cache. Other geocachers might not know that bears frequent the area.

 

I might decide to take certain risks when I search for a cache. I'd just prefer to make informed decisions.

 

If one is going to actually look at the cache page there are numerous ways to communicate the risks. The cache owner can use attributes for all those situations and then some. If the cache owner chooses to not do that one can log.

 

In the cache of this specific death about a bridge with no grate. If that is going to continually be used as an example I will continually point out that the cache was in a place where it shouldn't have been and 30 some cachers did NOT use the tools at hand to either warn that there was an issue or take the initiative to post an NA or anything. I refuse to utilize a cache placed against the guidelines as a reason that we need to have a bells and whistles warning system or that Groundspeak needs to some how bubble wrap the natural world and make it safer. People need to create a cultural change in that community where these caches are not glorified and where they are addressed honestly. If the reviewer is unable or unwilling to do this Groundspeak needs to address that issue with that particular reviewer and that community should work with Groundspeak to make that happen.

 

People need to start using the tools at hand to communicate these issues.

 

I am a safety nut. I put notes on my cache about safety issues. I visit caches regularly which don't have notes. Bu since I like to be prepared I go read previous logs where there a plethora of information tucked away where I'm going. I check for attributes and the d/t ratings. Then I do radical things like pull up the pictures and the maps (topographical, satellite and just road map). Then I take the even more radical step of if I get to the area and realize it's not safe I turn around until I can make it safer for me to go there (bringing spotters, coming at a different time of day or even year) or sometimes I just don't go back. If the cache is against guidelines I contact a reviewer.

 

All these tools are right there. Right for everyone to use just no body does. Adding more tools to an overflowing tool box is not going to change the fact that people like to sneak around where they shouldn't be, take risks they shouldn't take, and end up injured or dead.

[Clan Riffster]

There are more than 223000 active caches in Germany

 

Holy mackerel! I've always known that, geographically speaking, Germany is a pretty big place, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the large volume of caches there. Judging by the math, it looks like those illegal caches he was speaking of represent less than 1% of the total. Is that right? Perhaps then, illegal caching isn't as ingrained into the culture as Veit would have us believe? Or, perhaps the percentage is much higher, but Veit only knows about 2000 of them? I don't live there, so I have little experience with the issue. I thought I might find some of these illegally placed caches through random selection, but apparently Lady Luck is mad at me tonight. I could not find a single cache that was at a place I knew for a fact was illegal for Joe Public to access.

 

Most local cachers do not want to get involved in nasty personal attacks.

 

That seems fairly evident. Rather than simply accept this as the status quo, someone in the community could decide that having people die while trying to increase the number of smileys they have, and work toward changing that belief system? I'm trying to imagine a similar situation enfolding on this side of the pond. Of the N/A logs I've posted, only one resulted in negative feedback from the owner. That N/A log was posted by me at the direct request of a Division of Forestry supervisor, but the owner still got angsty. I thought this might happen, but I weighed maintaining a positive relationship with a senior land manager against a few heated e-mails, and decided it was worth it. Sometimes doing what is right trumps remaining in one's comfort zone. I think this becomes especially true when a lack of action can get folks killed.

 

Moreover, if I have to go to GZ this means than I also would to climb up e.g. the bridge and search for the cache and then post a N/A log thereafter.

 

I'm not sure that's true. Perhaps you and I disagree on how big ground zero is? To me, ground zero is that point where you are close enough to the cache to start trying to figure out where it is hidden. In the case of a micro stuck on an elevated water pipe bridge structure over a hundred feet across, if I get to one end of the structure, and my GPSr tells me the cache is 50' away, and the cache description, past logs and attributes tell me that it is, in fact, on the structure itself, I would say that putting your name on the log is not necessary, for you to log a N/A. All of your experience up to that point tells you it is on the structure. You know that Joe Public is not permitted on the structure. You have an obvious guideline violation. A N/A is perfectly appropriate. Failing to log an N/A at that point simply enables future tragedies. Veit seems to be promoting a reduction in tragedies. I am just offering a tool which could help him with his goal. He is the one that refuses to utilize that tool, choosing instead to embrace the very mindset that led to this death. (Illegal caches are cool!)

 

Those who left because they felt the task to be too dangerous did probably not dare to write a N/A log as N/A logs except for missing caches are not part of the local culture.

 

In my opinion, this needs to change before more cachers get themselves killed going places where they have no business going. I recognize that, as an outsider, my feelings on the matter would be given very little credibility. However, a local, who is passionate about keeping cachers alive, might just succeed where I would fail. But only if that local felt that saving lives was a worthy endeavor.

 

He easily can. (point out 2000 illegal caches when his find count is below 500)Even I can do it without living in Germany.

 

I would be interested in how this is done. Generally speaking, if I have a strong familiarity with a geographic region, and see a cache icon on a map, I can tell if that cache is at a place where Joe Public is not allowed. But if I were to branch outside my knowledge zone, my ability lessens considerably. Take the cache in the mall sign you mentioned. If it was close to home, a glance at a map, along with information gleaned from the cache page, would tell me it is on a mall sign. But if it were 500 miles away, I suppose I could try zooming in with Google Earth, but I'm not sure I would be able to tell, with any degree of certainty, that this cache was illegal. If you and Veit are able to make such determinations for caches you've never even been close to, you have an enviable skill.

 

I do not think that he wanted someone from the other side of the globe to address this.

 

Well, it sure looked that way when he posted; However, since you seem so sure that this is the way to go, and the current process works, please go ahead and get all those illegal caches archived. I'm not sure how else that could be interpreted.

 

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

 

While I agree that citing Darwin every time someone dies because they misjudged the risks inherent with the cache site, they misjudged their ability to survive those risks, or they completely ignored the risks, is not very palatable, it is often an accurate label. In modern Internet speak, citing Darwin typically refers to a situation where someone died because they did something dumb. I am not saying that is the case with the cache in question, but it certainly could be. Scaling such a structure, which is off limits to the public, with reduced vision, during freezing temperatures, alone, is not a smart decision.

 

As to the hypothetical 12 year old wandering from 5/5 cache to 5/5 cache, with his little nose buried in his smart phone, blissfully unaware of the world around him, perhaps invoking the "Where are the parents?" clause really is in order. When my kids were that age, I would not let them go after a 1/1 without me being right there with them. I certainly would not let them wander off, unescorted, to a high D/T cache.

 

Though I do agree wholeheartedly with your notion that more and more accidents will happen if nothing is done. I have even suggested a course of action which, on its face, seems pretty rational and reasonable to a lot of folks here; "Archive those dangerous, illegal caches". Culture be darned. This is a man's life we're talking about. Had the community felt that protecting the life of an iconic cacher was important enough, that cache would not have survived its first finder, and Willi would still be with us today. Sadly, the community seems to place ego over life.

 

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

 

It is at that fundamental point that we disagree. Using the cache in question as an example seems to support my viewpoint. The cache page was already bristling with warnings, both subtle and direct, for any that cared to view them. The existence of those warnings did not prevent this tragedy. That could be because of one or more of three things: He failed to read the warnings, he failed to properly assess his abilities or he failed to take the warnings seriously. Adding another warning, to any one of those three failures, would obviously have no impact. If a person refuses to read the warnings, having more of them won't help. If a person refuses to properly assess their own abilities in a hazardous situation, having more warnings won't help. If a person refuses to take the existing warnings seriously, having more warnings won't help.

 

The other side of that coin is equally true. Someone who reads the existing warnings, (which were pretty darn clear on that particular cache page), takes those warnings seriously, and puts their ego aside when assessing their own physical abilities, don't need another warning.

 

Extreme caching isn't all that different from other extreme outdoor hobbies. If you participated in an extreme hobby, such as sky diving, scuba, rock climbing, etc, would you be willing to partner with someone who is careless, or even worse, reckless? I'm too old, fat and crippled for most extreme hobbies, but there are kayaking trips I take that could easily end in death. I will not paddle with someone who dismisses hazards, won't read about the hazards and/or has too fragile an ego to properly assess themselves and their ability to successfully complete the journey. I won't cache with someone like that either.

[+t4e]

 

So i'm visiting a foreign country. All of the locals know very well that a cache is off-limits despite there not being any signage, but don't say anything out of fear of reprisal. I go to look for it and get arrested, and while on vacation.

 

How is this a local issue, again?

 

 

as a foreigner YOU are supposed to respect the laws of the country you are visiting

 

try telling the cop that the locals successfully bypassed the law, see if the argument flies

 

better example yet, you get stopped for speeding, would the argument that the car ahead of you was speeding get you out of trouble?

 

 

 

no, such as going into another country to make order

 

 

 

What if local cache A is afraid to post the NA and asks cacher B from across the pond to post it for him?

 

 

same as i said before, cacher B has no business in posting anything anywhere where they haven't physically been, no matter what the circumstances

 

 

 

- give cachers better tools to meet at a cache so they are not there alone

 

 

i am not quite getting this point

 

Just an idea I threw out there in post #172 http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4924638

 

give me an example of what you mean, i just can't think of anything useful beyond regular contact

 

For example a simple link in the cache listing: "I want to do this cache, but not alone"...which then maybe prompts you to enter your mobile, time you are available, agreement that your cacher name/phone number is forwarded when someone else comes onboard. When someone else sees the listing they might see: "1 cacher waiting to do this cache together". Something along those lines. Heck, thinking about it, it might even be possible to use something like this for owners/cachers living nearby to go out into the field every now and then when someone is at their cache/needs help (I know it happens informally anyway, but could be standardized on the site).

 

that can be achieved with a note, or by contacting people through their profile

[+baloo&bd]

 

"There are rocks you have to avoid. It's a long hike so bring plenty of water. There may be mosquitoes and ticks....ad nauseum.".

 

There is a big difference between rocks and Mosquitos and a Grate MISSING from a bridge that is recommended to be crossed at night!!

 

C'mon now, You know this.

 

I think these would be valid.

 

Mosquitoes can carry West Nile virus. Deer ticks can cause lyme disease. Both which can cause sickness or death. If I cache barefoot or with flip flops I could sprain or break a bone or even severely cut myself which could result in infections, some life threatening.

 

Why would these not be equally important?

[+JesandTodd]

Mosquitos and ticks are expected while outdoors-especially in the woods. A missing part of the floor is not.

 

I can't believe I had to go there.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Mosquitos and ticks are expected while outdoors-especially in the woods. A missing part of the floor is not.

 

I can't believe I had to go there.

 

I was responding to this:

 

"Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!"

 

One person's "expected" dangers are another persons unexpected dangers. Not everyone is aware of the risks and dangers associated with Lyme Disease (especially peope from areas that don't have the joy of having to pick them off their clothes and skin after a hike). So, by the logic of the quote, I'd have to list of the real or perceived dangers that a cacher may encounter en route to my cache. Of course, if I used my definition of dangers (in most cases) the list would likely be non-existent, because like you, I wouldn't mention the "run of the mill" things a person might expect in the woods. I'd mention the steep slope required to get to the cache, or the stream you'd have to cross over the fallen tree.

 

And to me, a missing bit of grating on someplace I shouldn't be, isn't a risk to me. Because I wouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[Edit for additional point]

Edited December 22, 2011 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[Clan Riffster]

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

Your solution seems to be to allow these dangerous, illegal caches to continue, unchallenged, for the time being. How will you feel if your choice leads to another death, when you could have prevented it? Anyone who has studied mob dynamics knows that, when a large group is emotionally charged, a lot can be accomplished. This tragedy could be the perfect launch mechanism for something of this magnitude, but it needs a spokesperson who believes that lives are more important than ego. I think you could be that person. I can see your passion. I just think that it is misdirected, when your focus is on adding more warnings to protect those who ignore existing warnings.

 

It took a mother who lost her child to a drunk driver to start and organization called MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) to push for laws already on the books to be enforced and make the public aware of the inherent dangers of driving drunk.

That's a pretty good analogy. MADD's greatest single success was that they changed the general public's apathy toward drunk driving, through an awareness building campaign. Once MADD got Joe Public to view driving drunk as unacceptable, pushing for enforcement became easy. When a person got arrested 30 years ago for drunk driving, he was just "one of the boys". Now, if you are arrested for DUI, you are a pariah, unfit for civilized society. All because one person said, "Enough people have died" and took a stand. A geocaching community that believes that going after illegal, dangerous caches is a good thing needs the same kind of wake up call. Not more warnings which have already been demonstrated to be ineffective. Kudos, Sir.

 

The list:

 

1 ) Every individual cacher should be more aware of the risks he is taking. Ultimately it is his or her responsibility if he goes for a cache. There have been suggestions how this general awareness can be heightened: a new Forum category Safety, as well as a global communication campaign by the platform.

 

2 ) Generally place more emphasis in the community on safety rather than on find-counts (here we can all play our part, but again, global communication might help/nurture such a culture change)

 

3 ) Place more emphasis on safety rather than avoidance of being seen by muggles. Plastic containers can be replaced, lifes cannot.

 

4 ) Caches not to be placed in "illegal locations". The many existing ones to be archived. This can be achieved by Groundspeak on a global scale (database query, mail to all reviewers to take action) and on a local scale (encouraging everyone to use NA logs on existing caches).

 

5 ) Cachers to have better tools to warn other cachers of dangers than the currently existing mix of cache description and attributes by CO, and normal logs+NM/NA logs+emails to reviewers+GS by finders. Possibly a new Warnings logtype. Or a wiki-like editable warnings section where any cacher can point out dangers.

 

6 ) An anonymous "report cache" button for every cache to circumvent local peer pressure

 

7 ) Owners to be encouraged to think twice about possible dangers with their cache when publishing a cache and to correctly list those (even if it means spoilering). All current COs could be sent an email by GS to revisit their cache pages and update them about dangers (something that has already happened locally, I'm starting to see caches being archived and updated)

 

8 ) Give cachers better tools to meet at a cache so they are not there alone

 

You know, that's not a bad list of suggestions. I disagree with the effectiveness of some, but that doesn't stop me from admiring your collaboration efforts. A tip of my smelly hat to you.

 

# 1 is a no-brainer for me. We have got to take ownership of our actions.

 

I like # 2, though I'm not sure how to mesh those two together. Locally, caches which attract the numbers oriented are about as safe as they can be. Your greatest risk is death by monotony. Those caches which require specialized skills or knowledge don't seem to be very appealing to the numbers crowd. The motivation for numbers is pretty distant from the motivation to increase your average D/T score.

 

# 3 is good. An emphasis on safety is usually painless.

 

# 4 is, as I've ranted countless times, critical.

 

I've beaten the # 5 horse enough for now.

 

On the surface, # 6 might seem redundant, as we already have a fairly easy method for making anonymous reports concerning hazards and/or guideline violations. But creating a single click method might encourage more people to voice their concerns.

 

The part of # 7 I agree with is using the tools available to point out known hazards, so those who follow in your caching footsteps can properly prepare for the hunt and not be blindsided. Perhaps a campaign to encourage folks to use relevant attributes and D/T ratings?

 

I haven't really addressed # 8, though it has come up a time or two. There are cachers who embrace their community and there are cachers who are ever elusive, preferring solo adventures. I think that those who embrace their communities already have the means to contact others. I am more on the recluse side of the scale, and even I have a few dozen phone numbers for local cachers in my cell phone. In Willi's case, I can't help but think that anyone who is such an icon in their caching community would have the ability to contact at least one friend, if he wanted to. Maybe?

[+HHD]

Also, a tidbit maybe: one of the guys who did the cache before Willi posted online that he's convinced that the city authorities removed that one grille so people wouldn't use this bridge as a regular crossing. There wasn't anything about that in the article, but it does seem very plausible. So they would be another party that played their little role in the making of this tragedy.

 

So the authorities did something to prevent people from using something as a bridge (something it was not intended for) so they had some role in the tragedy? I don't follow the logic.

 

I follow the logic. But what it says to me is that the log should have been a Needs Archive instead of a note.

 

Can you explain it to me then?

 

The intentional removal of the grid (if it really happened) in order to prevent the public from using it as a bridge would open them up to liability. At the very least it would make them partially responsible. Rather than remove the grid they could have secured the hatch more securely

 

in America this would be true for sure. In other countries I'm not so sure.

Example. My father moved to Ecuador in February after spending 3 months there last year. He is amazed at how anti-litigious they are. A man was crossing the street in the appropriate area at the appropriate time...he was struck by a passing car and had to be hospitalized for a few days. Once he was about to leave the hospital he was given an estimate to pay for the repairs from the gentleman that hit him. He promptly paid and apologized to guy that hit him again for not paying enough attention.

In America the guy that hit him would be absolutely demonized and would be paying 10s of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

I don't know how they do it in Germany...maybe it is different from our experiences.

[+GeoBain]

 

So i'm visiting a foreign country. All of the locals know very well that a cache is off-limits despite there not being any signage, but don't say anything out of fear of reprisal. I go to look for it and get arrested, and while on vacation.

 

How is this a local issue, again?

 

 

as a foreigner YOU are supposed to respect the laws of the country you are visiting

 

try telling the cop that the locals successfully bypassed the law, see if the argument flies

 

better example yet, you get stopped for speeding, would the argument that the car ahead of you was speeding get you out of trouble?

 

I believe you misunderstood the scenario before you. 4WF is saying that he, the foreigner, would not be aware that the cache was placed illegally. But the locals do. The fact they do nothing about it potentially makes it more than just a local problem. It could very well become a problem for visitors into their area.

 

 

 

no, such as going into another country to make order

 

 

 

What if local cache A is afraid to post the NA and asks cacher B from across the pond to post it for him?

 

 

same as i said before, cacher B has no business in posting anything anywhere where they haven't physically been, no matter what the circumstances

 

It must be nice to live in such a black and white world. But I respectfully disagree with your all or nothing outlook. If someone local who is fully aware of the issues at hand asks for an outsider to help out, that outsider has every right to step up and lend a hand.

 

If it's good enough for reviewers (we've seen non-local reviewers pitch in many times when requested), then it's good enough for the regular geocaching public.

 

But I do agree that someone with no intimate knowledge of the mediating circumstances has no business sticking their nose into someone else's business.

[+Huntleigh]

 

What has changed is the growth rate of listed caches and new cachers. With that we have an increased frequency of deaths.

 

3 deaths from 2003 to November of 2009. The 3rd being on the cusp of the 1 million listed caches mark.

 

We hit a million and bound wayyy past it and boom, 2 deaths just 5 months apart and this last death was easily prevented.

 

At some point we as a community need to sit up and take notice and reflect... Is swim at your own risk really the best policy?

 

Can't we DO something to educate or at least address the issue of safety? Or is it sombody else's problem?

 

If folks aren't reading the cache pages to get safety info, how do we reach them?

 

The most recent frequency in geocaching deaths is 5 months. Heinrich's Law applies. I would almost expect at least one more death in the next 12 months.

 

I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm not, what could have been done to try to prevent that next geocaching death especially if it is due to a cache that shouldn't have been posted in the first place as in the case of Willimax's death?

 

 

Frequency is the wrong measure. Deaths per 1,000,000 caches or per 1,000,000 cache attempts should be calculated. More caches and cachers will lead to more incidences just be the shear fact there are more people out there.

..snip...

 

Even that statistic (deaths/100,000 caches) is probably too crude. It should be something like they do for the road toll (deaths per 100,000 vehicle-kilometre). We'd need something that looked at number of cachers and the number of caches — "cacher-caches"?

[+Huntleigh]

Mosquitos and ticks are expected while outdoors-especially in the woods. A missing part of the floor is not.

 

I can't believe I had to go there.

This is a prime example of where the "common sense" argument falls flat.

 

I live in a country where there are no bears, snakes, scorpions, rabid squirrels and while we have mossies and the occasional cattle tick none carry any disease. It would be common sense for a Kiwi to rat around in any bush so long as it didn't look like Ongaonga

 

Visitors to NZ do make the mistake that the NZ outdoors is benign however. Two people died of exposure very close to this cache GC38F5G Kime Hut recently. We have mountains in a maritime climate and the weather can go from fine to storm in half an hour. In this particular case the pair were experienced NZers who pressed on trying to get to the hut while they should have descended below the bush line but every summer we get SAR call outs from visitors who have tried this sort of travel in sand shoes and a T-shirt.

 

Common sense assumes knowledge is commonly held, often it isn't.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

What has changed is the growth rate of listed caches and new cachers. With that we have an increased frequency of deaths.

 

3 deaths from 2003 to November of 2009. The 3rd being on the cusp of the 1 million listed caches mark.

 

We hit a million and bound wayyy past it and boom, 2 deaths just 5 months apart and this last death was easily prevented.

 

At some point we as a community need to sit up and take notice and reflect... Is swim at your own risk really the best policy?

 

Can't we DO something to educate or at least address the issue of safety? Or is it sombody else's problem?

 

If folks aren't reading the cache pages to get safety info, how do we reach them?

 

The most recent frequency in geocaching deaths is 5 months. Heinrich's Law applies. I would almost expect at least one more death in the next 12 months.

 

I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm not, what could have been done to try to prevent that next geocaching death especially if it is due to a cache that shouldn't have been posted in the first place as in the case of Willimax's death?

 

 

Frequency is the wrong measure. Deaths per 1,000,000 caches or per 1,000,000 cache attempts should be calculated. More caches and cachers will lead to more incidences just be the shear fact there are more people out there.

..snip...

 

Even that statistic (deaths/100,000 caches) is probably too crude. It should be something like they do for the road toll (deaths per 100,000 vehicle-kilometre). We'd need something that looked at number of cachers and the number of caches — "cacher-caches"?

 

Deaths per 1M cache finds?

[+t4e]

 

So i'm visiting a foreign country. All of the locals know very well that a cache is off-limits despite there not being any signage, but don't say anything out of fear of reprisal. I go to look for it and get arrested, and while on vacation.

 

How is this a local issue, again?

 

 

as a foreigner YOU are supposed to respect the laws of the country you are visiting

 

try telling the cop that the locals successfully bypassed the law, see if the argument flies

 

better example yet, you get stopped for speeding, would the argument that the car ahead of you was speeding get you out of trouble?

 

I believe you misunderstood the scenario before you. 4WF is saying that he, the foreigner, would not be aware that the cache was placed illegally. But the locals do. The fact they do nothing about it potentially makes it more than just a local problem. It could very well become a problem for visitors into their area.

 

i didn't misunderstand at all...

 

leaving geocaching aside, there are many situations where locals are fully aware of something being illegal yet some manage to go unpunished and those situations will not be apparent to a visitor

 

i agree that anything illegal has wider implications and will affect those unaware of the laws

 

what i'm saying is that as a visitor is upon you to educate yourself about the laws and customs of the place you visit, you are not in your own country and are subject to the laws of that place, not everything that is illegal is posted in public places because it is assumed that locals know the laws, not a single country accounts for visitors and plasters the streets with everything you shouldn't do

 

let me give you another example

for argument's sake say you go to a country where turning right on red light is illegal

there is no signage telling you its not allowed because the locals already know that

you see someone turning right on red light and you follow suit only to get stopped by the cops, what would be your argument? "nobody told me i cant do that and i just saw a guy doing it"?

it is upon you to know that rule when you start driving in that country, no excuses

[+JesandTodd]

 

This is a prime example of where the "common sense" argument falls flat.

 

I live in a country where there are no bears, snakes, scorpions, rabid squirrels and while we have mossies and the occasional cattle tick none carry any disease. It would be common sense for a Kiwi to rat around in any bush so long as it didn't look like Ongaonga

 

O.M.G.! I do not ever want to come in contact with THAT!

 

On the other hand. I come from an area with plenty of scorpions, snakes, and rapid coyotes. Scorpions are frequently underneath ammo cans that are hidden beaneath the pile of sticks/rocks. When caching there, I would always give the ammo can a good kick to make sure all the inhabitants would SCRAM prior to me picking the can up.

 

I'm sure most people caching in Az for the first time don't know this little technique. Would I label this as a *warning*? No. However, most, if not all true desert caches do have this listed in their description.

 

However, if there is a big 'ol hole at GZ, and someone mentions it in their log, then I'd like an easy way to access that dangerous information. I do not read all the logs prior to a search. So leaving them nestled in the logs is not the answer. I'd just like a way to say, "hey, there are 3 warnings on this cache. let me click on them and see what that's all about"

[Mr.Yuck]

Also, a tidbit maybe: one of the guys who did the cache before Willi posted online that he's convinced that the city authorities removed that one grille so people wouldn't use this bridge as a regular crossing. There wasn't anything about that in the article, but it does seem very plausible. So they would be another party that played their little role in the making of this tragedy.

 

So the authorities did something to prevent people from using something as a bridge (something it was not intended for) so they had some role in the tragedy? I don't follow the logic.

 

I follow the logic. But what it says to me is that the log should have been a Needs Archive instead of a note.

 

Can you explain it to me then?

 

The intentional removal of the grid (if it really happened) in order to prevent the public from using it as a bridge would open them up to liability. At the very least it would make them partially responsible. Rather than remove the grid they could have secured the hatch more securely

 

in America this would be true for sure. In other countries I'm not so sure.

Example. My father moved to Ecuador in February after spending 3 months there last year. He is amazed at how anti-litigious they are. A man was crossing the street in the appropriate area at the appropriate time...he was struck by a passing car and had to be hospitalized for a few days. Once he was about to leave the hospital he was given an estimate to pay for the repairs from the gentleman that hit him. He promptly paid and apologized to guy that hit him again for not paying enough attention.

In America the guy that hit him would be absolutely demonized and would be paying 10s of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

I don't know how they do it in Germany...maybe it is different from our experiences.

 

Yes, we Americans are known to be rather litigous, aren't we? Interesting story.

 

There's a picture in one of the news articles, but I don't have time to go through 9 pages of the thread to find it. This was a bridge carrying a pipeline to some sort of pump house. This particular bridge could not be used by the public as a bridge at all. Unless their destination was 10 feet above the ground along the wall of the pump house.

[+addisonbr]

However, if there is a big 'ol hole at GZ, and someone mentions it in their log, then I'd like an easy way to access that dangerous information. I do not read all the logs prior to a search. So leaving them nestled in the logs is not the answer. I'd just like a way to say, "hey, there are 3 warnings on this cache. let me click on them and see what that's all about"

I hear you.

 

I'm not interested in having the world bubble-wrapped either; people should be responsible for their own actions, etc. I certainly don't think that Groundspeak should be in the business of not publishing (legal) caches based on a safety factor.

 

But it seems like it could be a useful log type that some folks would like to use. I'd probably get more use out of it than the Announcement log type, which certainly seems redundant when compared with expecting people to read all logs... But it's useful for some people, and helps avoid important information getting lost in the cracks, so I understand why Groundspeak rolled it out last year.

[+GeoBain]

 

So i'm visiting a foreign country. All of the locals know very well that a cache is off-limits despite there not being any signage, but don't say anything out of fear of reprisal. I go to look for it and get arrested, and while on vacation.

 

How is this a local issue, again?

 

 

as a foreigner YOU are supposed to respect the laws of the country you are visiting

 

try telling the cop that the locals successfully bypassed the law, see if the argument flies

 

better example yet, you get stopped for speeding, would the argument that the car ahead of you was speeding get you out of trouble?

 

I believe you misunderstood the scenario before you. 4WF is saying that he, the foreigner, would not be aware that the cache was placed illegally. But the locals do. The fact they do nothing about it potentially makes it more than just a local problem. It could very well become a problem for visitors into their area.

 

i didn't misunderstand at all...

 

leaving geocaching aside, there are many situations where locals are fully aware of something being illegal yet some manage to go unpunished and those situations will not be apparent to a visitor

 

i agree that anything illegal has wider implications and will affect those unaware of the laws

 

what i'm saying is that as a visitor is upon you to educate yourself about the laws and customs of the place you visit, you are not in your own country and are subject to the laws of that place, not everything that is illegal is posted in public places because it is assumed that locals know the laws, not a single country accounts for visitors and plasters the streets with everything you shouldn't do

 

let me give you another example

for argument's sake say you go to a country where turning right on red light is illegal

there is no signage telling you its not allowed because the locals already know that

you see someone turning right on red light and you follow suit only to get stopped by the cops, what would be your argument? "nobody told me i cant do that and i just saw a guy doing it"?

it is upon you to know that rule when you start driving in that country, no excuses

 

It's a little different observing someone doing something and following suit.

 

In geocaching, if the cache is placed according to the guidelines, there is an assumed adequate permission. A foreigner hunting for a cache that has been found numerous times without a hint of problems could easily assume permission exists and thus there is nothing wrong with him being there.

 

Again, being a geocacher myself, I know that one can never assume adequate permission because there are a lot of cachers out there without adequate permission. It is up to every geoacher to assess the situation and if you don't feel like you belong there, then you should not attempt the cache.

 

And I believe it would be obvious to me that this location was off limits regardless of lack of signage.

 

But there are a lot of geocachers out there that just trust the CO blindly. So if you have knowledge that the cache shouldn't be there, you should speak up.

 

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

[cezanne]

 

The list:

 

2 ) Generally place more emphasis in the community on safety rather than on find-counts (here we can all play our part, but again, global communication might help/nurture such a culture change)

 

 

I like # 2, though I'm not sure how to mesh those two together. Locally, caches which attract the numbers oriented are about as safe as they can be. Your greatest risk is death by monotony. Those caches which require specialized skills or knowledge don't seem to be very appealing to the numbers crowd. The motivation for numbers is pretty distant from the motivation to increase your average D/T score.

 

While I would rephrase #2 to make it more general and not only to apply it to find counts and safety (for details see below), I think that whether the two mesh together depends a lot on the local community and which caches are around. In my area those who lead with respect to find counts are also those who wish to find all caches they can find which also means that they engage into activities they have not dealt with before and it also means that they tend to make use of improvized solutions when they are not properly prepared in order not to waste valuable time.

 

As to my more general formulation of what's behind #2: I simply think that a cacher's value in the community should not mainly depend on how many caches he has found, how many D5 or T5 caches he has found, how many he has found in one year, one month, one day etc, but rather on his/her personality and how he acts and behaves as geocacher.

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

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=93821766-5ea2-4d09-b0b8-6cb88a38d429

which I regard as dangerous as they serve as temptation for some cachers to dare things which are unsuitable for them just to belong to a certain group.Several of those who qualified by this and the caches of the series later on mentioned in nearly all their logs that they are proud and honorful sons of Sir Gaylord did this in a way that it somehow created the atmosphere of "hey, look we are the cool heros and the rest of you, you are nothing". This is just an example - I have observed similar phenomena in several countries, including Germany.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Presence]

IBTL.....I have nothing else to add.

[+GeoBain]

IBTL.....I have nothing else to add.

 

There is nothing indicating this thread needs to be locked. Everyone has thus far been fairly cordial and mostly on-topic.

 

Granted the conversation is going in circles at this point, but that is the natural flow of many conversations on the boards.

[4wheelin_fool]

What has changed is the growth rate of listed caches and new cachers. With that we have an increased frequency of deaths.

3 deaths from 2003 to November of 2009. The 3rd being on the cusp of the 1 million listed caches mark.

We hit a million and bound wayyy past it and boom, 2 deaths just 5 months apart and this last death was easily prevented.

At some point we as a community need to sit up and take notice and reflect... Is swim at your own risk really the best policy?

Can't we DO something to educate or at least address the issue of safety? Or is it sombody else's problem?

If folks aren't reading the cache pages to get safety info, how do we reach them?

The most recent frequency in geocaching deaths is 5 months. Heinrich's Law applies. I would almost expect at least one more death in the next 12 months.

I hope I'm wrong. But if I'm not, what could have been done to try to prevent that next geocaching death especially if it is due to a cache that shouldn't have been posted in the first place as in the case of Willimax's death?

Frequency is the wrong measure. Deaths per 1,000,000 caches or per 1,000,000 cache attempts should be calculated. More caches and cachers will lead to more incidences just be the shear fact there are more people out there.

..snip...

Even that statistic (deaths/100,000 caches) is probably too crude. It should be something like they do for the road toll (deaths per 100,000 vehicle-kilometre). We'd need something that looked at number of cachers and the number of caches "cacher-caches"?

 

Germany has a very high rate of cache density when compared to the entire planet.

 

There are more than 223000 active caches in Germany

 

223,000 out of 1,600,000 total means that 1 out of every 6 caches placed thoughout the world is in Germany.

 

With caches being openly listed in areas that are illegal, the death rate would naturally be high. Illegal activity breeds unsafe actions.

 

 

What disturbs me, is why are caches in illegal areas being published in Germany at a higher frequency than other places? From a legal standpoint, is it because someone in Germany would be unlikely or impossible to sue someone in the United States? Is it also because Germany has such a large revenue, that Groundspeak would be unlikely to put a damper on illegal activity for fear of a backlash, creating a loss of revenue?

 

Willi, a very experienced cacher falls 80 feet into a very cold river. He didnt die immediately. He was alive long enough to pull himself to the edge, where he most likely screamed for help at the top of his lungs. Being 21 and in the prime of his life he died all alone, experiencing extreme pain in the dark, bathed in freezing water with multiple injuries at an age when most people are thinking about their future. He knew he was dying and probably thought about what his family would think. He would never hear his mothers voice, or see any of his friends again. Bye Willi. Groundspeak has your money.

Edited December 22, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool