Electrical Box Hides

[+Glenn]

I see the biggest issue is that we all try to apply the "common sense" term to situations that it does not apply. For those that have electricity, it is common sense to flip the light switch to turn it on. Fora person raised in an part of the work without electricity, it is not common. In the West, you flip the switch up. In other parts, the swich goes down to go on.

 

So... the application of "common sense" to this because the general community doesn't know the difference between these and live boxes is probably not a good premise.

 

Exactly. Common sense in some situations is simply wrong and you can't rely on it. Common sense says that lower voltages are safer than higher voltages. However, a Van de Graaff generator can cause hundreds of thousands of volts to pass thru your body with no ill affects. Yet people have died after getting shocked with as little as 30 volts.

[+Bamilbis]

Voltage doesn't kill. Amperage does.

[+Glenn]

Voltage doesn't kill. Amperage does.

 

Agreed and if common sense ruled then we would see High Amperage signs instead of High Voltage signs.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Thanks knowschad. It's interesting that the 9th type of most common fatal accident is being hit by a vehicle. This is a real risk for many geocachers, particularly for roadside hides. This is twice as common as being electrocuted, and likely a much higher risk for many of us than for the general populace. No one is up in arms about this though, as far as I know. ("Think of the children!")

 

Of course, because we can't live without cars, we ignore the fact you are 90x more likely to die in one than by being electrocuted. Because hey, what can you do about it? (Wonder how many cachers have died behind the wheel on the way to a cache? It's bound to have happened, but we're unlikely to ever know the statistics.)

 

We know from another thread that falling is a possible accident that cachers might face, and that this has, unfortunately, actually happened.

 

Anyway, the risk of electrical box hides seems pretty far down on the list of things to worry about.

[+Glenn]

Thanks knowschad. It's interesting that the 9th type of most common fatal accident is being hit by a vehicle. This is a real risk for many geocachers, particularly for roadside hides. This is twice as common as being electrocuted, and likely a much higher risk for many of us than for the general populace. No one is up in arms about this though, as far as I know. ("Think of the children!")

 

Of course, because we can't live without cars, we ignore the fact you are 90x more likely to die in one than by being electrocuted. Because hey, what can you do about it? (Wonder how many cachers have died behind the wheel on the way to a cache? It's bound to have happened, but we're unlikely to ever know the statistics.)

 

We know from another thread that falling is a possible accident that cachers might face, and that this has, unfortunately, actually happened.

 

Anyway, the risk of electrical box hides seems pretty far down on the list of things to worry about.

 

Following that line of logic someone in a boat on the water has the same risk of drowning as someone on dry land. Or someone climbing a tree has the same risk of falling from that tree that someone standing on the ground watching him climb has.

[Clan Riffster]

 

Nanny state? Maybe, but we have seatbelt laws, helmet laws and other common sense rules that benefit us as a whole. Geocaching should be no different.

 

For the record, I believe seatbelt laws and helmet laws are an unnecessary intrusion on my personal freedoms. Also for the record I was wearing both long before anyone told me I had to.

From what I understand, seatbelt and helmet laws are there because the more injuries and deaths there are, the more our local services are taxed. The more the police, fire, and aid workers have to scoop up and care for people after accidents, the more we have to pay out and use services that could help others. If this is the case, then I don't have as much of a problem with it.

Seatbelt laws and helmet laws exist to protect the gross income of the insurance industry.

(And yes, I to have worn both long before the 'gubmint' made me)

[+GeoRVers]

So to make caaching the safest, ban the use of automobiles in getting from one cache to the next

[+Glenn]

So to make caaching the safest, ban the use of automobiles in getting from one cache to the next

 

Properly rating a cache doesn't have a thing to do with making the cache safer. It does have to do with letting the cacher know that there is danger near the cache. Caches that are placed where you have to cross water, even waist deep in same cases, are given terrain rating of 5. Caches that are placed in trees, even just a couple feet up, are given a terrain rating of 5. Why wouldn't a cache placed near high voltage get a high terrain rating too?

[+niraD]

Caches that are placed where you have to cross water, even waist deep in same cases, are given terrain rating of 5. Caches that are placed in trees, even just a couple feet up, are given a terrain rating of 5.

Are you sure? None of the tree caches I've found have been rated T5. Of course, they haven't been significant enough to require special equipment (climbing gear). And the caches near/across water haven't been rated T5 unless special equipment (a boat of some kind) or special skills (the ability to swim significant distances, in lieu of using a boat) were required.

 

But maybe it's just a regional thing...

[+Glenn]

But maybe it's just a regional thing...

Nope, I've seen this pretty much all over. Even in SoCal.

I've been unable to do much geocaching over the past couple of years. I see that there are some new cache attributes but still no High Voltage attribute.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Glenn

[+CanadianRockies]

But maybe it's just a regional thing...

Nope, I've seen this pretty much all over. Even in SoCal.

In Alberta, I've yet to see a tree cache rated as T5. I'm leaning towards a regional thing.

[+cx1]

But maybe it's just a regional thing...

Nope, I've seen this pretty much all over. Even in SoCal.

In Alberta, I've yet to see a tree cache rated as T5. I'm leaning towards a regional thing.

I'm going to agree. Unless it was a tree that required climbing gear due to not having low enough branches to reach from the ground to begin the climb I've not see one rated higher then a 4 locally.

[+tozainamboku]

So to make caaching the safest, ban the use of automobiles in getting from one cache to the next

 

Properly rating a cache doesn't have a thing to do with making the cache safer. It does have to do with letting the cacher know that there is danger near the cache. Caches that are placed where you have to cross water, even waist deep in same cases, are given terrain rating of 5. Caches that are placed in trees, even just a couple feet up, are given a terrain rating of 5. Why wouldn't a cache placed near high voltage get a high terrain rating too?

Terrain has little to do with the dangers of the cache. It has to do with how difficult it is to get to or retrieve the cache. Certainly some terrain 5 caches are rated 5 because the equipment needed to retrieve the cache might include safety equipment. But I've seen many caches where some kind of safety equipment might be a good idea, but since it was not required the cache wasn't rated terrain 5.

 

Unlike like terrain there are attributes that indicate a particular hazard at the cache site. Here it is true that there is no "Electrical Hazard" icon available. The best you could do is "Dangerous Area".

 

The concern with these caches seems to be overstressed however. In looking at risk you have to take into account both the severity of the hazard and likelihood of it occurring. We are all very aware of severity of electrocution. Perhaps that is why we overreact to it. The truth is that there are hazards involved with every cache that can result in death. Whether it is falling, getting hit by a car, being shot at, or being attacked by wild animals, we go caching and accept that these risk are unlikely to happen - particular if we stay aware of the environment and proceed cautiously. I think it has been shown that the likelihood of electrocution from the kinds of hides we are talking about is very low - probably no greater that the likelihood of other risks we are willing to accept.

[+Glenn]

The concern with these caches seems to be overstressed however. In looking at risk you have to take into account both the severity of the hazard and likelihood of it occurring. We are all very aware of severity of electrocution. Perhaps that is why we overreact to it. The truth is that there are hazards involved with every cache that can result in death. Whether it is falling, getting hit by a car, being shot at, or being attacked by wild animals, we go caching and accept that these risk are unlikely to happen - particular if we stay aware of the environment and proceed cautiously. I think it has been shown that the likelihood of electrocution from the kinds of hides we are talking about is very low - probably no greater that the likelihood of other risks we are willing to accept.

 

Are you thinking about something like this http://www.sms-ink.com/risk-management/process-hazards-analysis/risk-assessment-matrix-2?

[+AneMae]

Brilliant place for a this one CO. I see that private property and the warning sign mean nothing to you.

 

Thankfully most CO's in my area have done a much better job than this. (For the record the cache was on the bottom of the box- I placed it here for the photo)

 

Edited February 1, 2012 by AneMae

[+niraD]

Brilliant place for a this one CO. I see that private property and the warning sign mean nothing to you.

Interesting. Around here, the signs on pad-mounted transformers are specifically "keep out" signs, rather than generic "warning" signs.

[+Totem Clan]

Brilliant place for a this one CO. I see that private property and the warning sign mean nothing to you.

 

Thankfully most CO's in my area have done a much better job than this. (For the record the cache was on the bottom of the box- I placed it here for the photo)

 

Interesting that you ignored the private property and the warning sign to find the cache but are mad at the CO for doing the same to hide the cache.

[joesdolphins]

I have many hides that are very similar to these. As long as they are not on anything that may hurt some one looking. A fake electrical box on the side of the building is ok as long as its not really close or on a real electrical box.

Edited February 3, 2012 by joesdolphins

[+AneMae]

I have many hides that are very similar to these. As long as they are not on anything that may hurt some one looking. A fake electrical box on the side of the building is ok as long as its not really close or on a real electrical box.

 

Yes, I see your point- however the last photo I posted, the cache was placed on a real live electrical box. With a warning no less. I have issues with this for reasons stated earlier in this thread.

[knowschad]

Brilliant place for a this one CO. I see that private property and the warning sign mean nothing to you.

 

Thankfully most CO's in my area have done a much better job than this. (For the record the cache was on the bottom of the box- I placed it here for the photo)

 

 

I would interpret that Authorized Personnel Only to be referring to opening the door, not to touching the exterior. If the exterior was unsafe, what would become of the little child that was chasing their ball, and accidentally bumped into the housing.

[+Totem Clan]

Yes, I see your point- however the last photo I posted, the cache was placed on a real live electrical box. With a warning no less. I have issues with this for reasons stated earlier in this thread.

..and still you found it? Why, if you think they are so dangerous and wrong? I'll repeat what I said before.

 

Interesting that you ignored the private property and the warning sign to find the cache but are mad at the CO for doing the same to hide the cache.

Why would you do that? Please respond/answer.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+Fredact]

OK so I found two particular Caches that I have concerns about. Both owned by the same CO. They are both disguised as electrical components. I know this has been discussed before, however, I would like to show you my concerns- photos posted here, and get your opinion on these caches. Should they be left alone, reported, removed or what?

I know the CO went to some effort to place these i.e. obtaining this type of cache equipment- but I am concerned that there is inherent danger in getting people to touch/mess with electrical boxes/covers. These came apart magnetically, but what if a cacher (I am thinking of maybe someone younger here) decided to take a real box apart to look for a cache in it because they had seen these types of hides before. Could be a bad scene.

 

I am just looking for thoughts and suggestions here. (Hoping these photos work)

 

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b265/arctic971/Geo/photo-1.jpg

 

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b265/arctic971/Geo/photo.jpg

 

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b265/arctic971/Geo/photo-2.jpg

 

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b265/arctic971/Geo/photo-3.jpg

 

This comes up every now and then, and I honestly can not see any problem at all. These caches that you show are 100% safe. There is no electricity going to them!

 

Your concern seems to be with some other caches, completely unrelated to these, that may be near a real electrical connection, and because someone once found a fake one, they'll be stupid enough to poke around a real one. I'd suggest, that if they are that stupid, they'll poke around a real one whether or not they've found a fake one or not. And in fact, if they've ever found a fake one, they may realize how different it is from a real one.

 

Do you really think, if there were never any fake ones, that stupid people still wouldn't poke around a real one?