unsafe cache

[+rubinscube]

http://coord.info/GC1JBWM

 

please read logs as this is an unsafe cache that requires safety notations; homeless & drug use may be present.

 

I thought there were moderators that verified geocaches?

[Keystone]

1. Please identify what section of the listing guidelines is an issue with this cache. You will not find "unsafe" anywhere in the listing guidelines. Volunteer cache reviewers publish caches that meet the listing guidelines following an online review.

 

2. I am moving this from the "How to" forum to the Geocaching Topics forum, since I don't see a question about how to use a site feature.

[+Max and 99]

Nope. The GC policy (I was told by GC) is that cachers can choose for themselves if an area is safe or not. If I see a cache with those kind of logs, or in an area with known issues, it goes immediately to my Ignore list. I have a lot of caches on my Ignore list for these reasons alone. There is no way in heck I will cache there, or take my kids to cache there (and I'm not a "young girl").

Thank goodness for that Ignore List!

[+Sol seaker]

I've seen a lot of caches near homeless camps.

I usually email the owners to let them know, and they can decide if they want to do anything about it.

You could request that they put something on the cache page so cachers know what they are getting into, and a young woman cacher doesn't happen in there alone, but they may or may not decide to do that.

 

Usually caches near homeless camps are soon taken so the problem generally solves itself.

 

I cache alone a lot so I appreciate cache pages that tell of the dangers, but all of them don't and all of the caches owners don't know of the dangers.

 

There are a lot of really dangerous caches out there that are loads of fun though, so I'm really glad they allow dangerous caches on this website. I love the "extreme" caches, even though I may not be able to ever get any of them. I love just reading the logs and caching them vicariously.

 

We all have to watch our surroundings and be careful.

This isn't disneyland, it's real life. Real life is inherently dangerous.

[+jellis]

From what I read there was never a problem until recently when a homeless muggle used the area for a home. And the last cache finder moved the cache so I don't see too much of an issue other then the CO may need to find a new home for it or archive it because it no longer matches the name and description. Not all homeless are drug addicts. In fact I don't see any mention in the logs of drugs. Only that cachers are nervous of homeless muggles. Hmm someday we all might be homeless.

[+zack_black]

Ok #1 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they will be dangerous?

 

#2 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they are a drug user?

 

#3 - Young women? Really? Because every homeless person is a rapist right?

 

 

Some people should show some compassion (and give their head a shake) before judging other people.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

http://coord.info/GC1JBWM

 

please read logs as this is an unsafe cache that requires safety notations; homeless & drug use may be present.

 

I thought there were moderators that verified geocaches?

 

1. I've encountered many homeless people while caching and never had a problem. If GZ is in the middle of their living room, move on and let the CO know about it. Maybe they will move on, or maybe the cache will need to be moved or archived. Having someone more or less permanently at GZ makes it hard to retrieve the cache, and it really isn't very fair to the homeless person either. There are some very kind homeless people, just FYI.

 

2. There are, unfortunately, plenty of sex-offenders who are not homeless. I'd guess that most of them have homes.

 

3. Locations change over time. Someplace that is very safe when a cache is placed can, over time, become extremely dangerous. How would a moderator know this? For that matter, how would the CO?

 

BTW, I'm not trying to paint an overly rosy picture of the homeless either - many of them actually are substance abusers (usually alcohol), and some are profoundly mentally ill. Like any encounter with someone who you don't know, you need to keep your eyes open, your wits about you, and when in doubt, bug out. Some of them are really nice people, some of them are not. Almost to a certainty, though, they have more serious problems than you do - so consider that.

[4wheelin_fool]

http://coord.info/GC1JBWM

 

please read logs as this is an unsafe cache that requires safety notations; homeless & drug use may be present.

 

I thought there were moderators that verified geocaches?

 

Its up to the property owner, actually. If they are not concerned about the homeless encamptment, they likely will not be concerned about the geocache. However, if it gets muggled constantly perhaps it should be archived.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

http://coord.info/GC1JBWM

 

please read logs as this is an unsafe cache that requires safety notations; homeless & drug use may be present.

 

I thought there were moderators that verified geocaches?

 

Since nobody has mention it yet...

 

Moderators only moderate posts in the forums. Reviewers only review cache listings. They don't go out and verify the caches, how it was placed, or what else someone might find after navigating to the published coordinates. At best, reviewers can see where a cache is located by using the coordinates that have been submitted on a map using Google maps or other maps available of the area such as property tax maps, but that is only to determine if there are proximity or permission issues. Since some of those maps can have fairly old information, what might appear on a map to be a patch of woods may actually turn out to be a new housing development. A reviewer would never know that just looking at the maps.

[+Packanack]

1. Please identify what section of the listing guidelines is an issue with this cache. You will not find "unsafe" anywhere in the listing guidelines. Volunteer cache reviewers publish caches that meet the listing guidelines following an online review.

 

2. I am moving this from the "How to" forum to the Geocaching Topics forum, since I don't see a question about how to use a site feature.

 

 

This has always been my understanding, however in the last couple of months I received a declination on a placement from the reviewer specifically referring to safety of the cache community rather than argue the point, I archived the cache. I thought it odd that the reviewer was entering into discussions of safety and I was concerned that somehow that was placing the onus of safety on the hider rather than on the seeker. My cache was in no way unsafe but I did not like the idea that somehow I was not having my cache vetted for safety of the seeker.

[+J the Goat]

I'm actually going to agree (on some level) with the OP. Homeless encampments have no business being cache locations for a multitude of reasons. I know, if you don't feel comfortable don't look. Some places just aren't appropriate for caches either way. The area may have changed over time, changing the location from a spot that's alright for a cache to a spot that isn't. You have two courses of action, neither of which will gaurentee any action. Notify the CO and suggest the issues that have arisen make the area a bad one for a cache. The other one is an NA log to alert the reviewer, however if the cache still fits within the guidelines I'd be surprised of a reviewer will do much about it. (That's not meant to sound as if they should and they wont)

 

Unfortunately, caches end up places they shouldn't. The NM log you posted will alert people in the future about the issues with the cache and will allow them to make their own decisions about hunting the cache.

[+jellis]

1. Please identify what section of the listing guidelines is an issue with this cache. You will not find "unsafe" anywhere in the listing guidelines. Volunteer cache reviewers publish caches that meet the listing guidelines following an online review.

 

2. I am moving this from the "How to" forum to the Geocaching Topics forum, since I don't see a question about how to use a site feature.

 

 

This has always been my understanding, however in the last couple of months I received a declination on a placement from the reviewer specifically referring to safety of the cache community rather than argue the point, I archived the cache. I thought it odd that the reviewer was entering into discussions of safety and I was concerned that somehow that was placing the onus of safety on the hider rather than on the seeker. My cache was in no way unsafe but I did not like the idea that somehow I was not having my cache vetted for safety of the seeker.

Unless the reviewer knows that area well they would not know the area is unsafe unless someone contacted the reviewer or maybe there was one there before and was archived for that reason.

Edited April 28, 2012 by jellis

[+lamoracke]

From what I read there was never a problem until recently when a homeless muggle used the area for a home. And the last cache finder moved the cache so I don't see too much of an issue other then the CO may need to find a new home for it or archive it because it no longer matches the name and description. Not all homeless are drug addicts. In fact I don't see any mention in the logs of drugs. Only that cachers are nervous of homeless muggles. Hmm someday we all might be homeless.

 

you do realize that the "last finder" and the OP are one and the same?

 

anyway, any cache in a wooded (or even urban area) runs the risk that it could be the home of a transient or partying kids for a day, week, longer, who knows. Its nice that you listed a warning, but it will be up to the CO to decide whether to archive or not. The people in question may leave in a day or two anyway depending where it is.

[+hukilaulau]

Ok #1 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they will be dangerous?

 

#2 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they are a drug user?

 

#3 - Young women? Really? Because every homeless person is a rapist right?

 

 

Some people should show some compassion (and give their head a shake) before judging other people.

Agree with this. Also:

#4 - You know for a fact the homeless person muggled the cache? He told you this or he wrote it in the logbook?

 

Why don't you just get a group of righteously indignant citizens and run him out of town? That will make the world a better place.

[+Sol seaker]

Ok #1 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they will be dangerous?

 

#2 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they are a drug user?

 

#3 - Young women? Really? Because every homeless person is a rapist right?

 

 

Some people should show some compassion (and give their head a shake) before judging other people.

 

I actually have spent a whole lot of time around homeless people so I have an idea of what is going on out there.

Even if I hadn't, the fact is that the statistics put a whole lot of them, a great percentage, as having mental problems. Go out and volunteer with them for a while, and tell me if you see different.

A great deal of them are homeless because of it.

I'm speaking of the homeless who are living in the bushes. There are homeless people who run into bad circumstances that they can't overcome and become homeless. Those people do not put up a tent under an overpass and call it home. They don't. They deal with agencies and friends and live in their car, etc.

The statistics on the permanently homeless show a great percentage with mental problems. In the time I've spent around them, I don't dispute this.

 

So what does this have to do with caching?

 

I agree, I think it was the goat, who said that he doesn't think homeless areas are good places for caches.

I don't think so either.

People who are mentally unstable and could be territorial about their space (many are) do not make great places for young women to be running across alone.

 

Don't make the mistake of labeling these people who are living in a tent under an underpass as perfectly normal in place of compassion. You can still see reality and be compassionate. Some of them are normal. More are not.

[+Packanack]

1. Please identify what section of the listing guidelines is an issue with this cache. You will not find "unsafe" anywhere in the listing guidelines. Volunteer cache reviewers publish caches that meet the listing guidelines following an online review.

 

2. I am moving this from the "How to" forum to the Geocaching Topics forum, since I don't see a question about how to use a site feature.

 

 

This has always been my understanding, however in the last couple of months I received a declination on a placement from the reviewer specifically referring to safety of the cache community rather than argue the point, I archived the cache. I thought it odd that the reviewer was entering into discussions of safety and I was concerned that somehow that was placing the onus of safety on the hider rather than on the seeker. My cache was in no way unsafe but I did not like the idea that somehow I was not having my cache vetted for safety of the seeker.

Unless the reviewer knows that area well they would not know the area is unsafe unless someone contacted the reviewer or maybe there was one there before and was archived for that reason.

 

None of which was the case, the only problem was that the person who was seeking a FTF ran into a police officer and apparently did not like being questioned as to what he was doing in the area, which is public property. Complained to reviewer about having to explain to the cop and the cache got archived.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Packanack

[+rubinscube]

I thank everyone for their interest this post and respect everyone's point of view, I am sorry that I failed to point out my own experiences for validity of concern.

 

• 
   
  
• as someone who was homeless & on drugs for almost 2 years after high-school (1980's), I do have a minimal idea as to the desires of those who may occupy GC spots, they can get very upset when their encampment is disturbed & will want money for such trespass.
   
  
• the reference to drug use was the used needles in the sand which would leave a bad hole in your foot if you or your kid was wearing sandals; sorry for not being specific.
   
  
• and yes I have volunteered for the homeless, thanks for asking. after I pulled myself out of homelessness, I delivered muffins and food to the homeless on the streets of Oceanside CA from a Catholic monastery.
  

 

again my apologies.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm actually going to agree (on some level) with the OP. Homeless encampments have no business being cache locations for a multitude of reasons. I know, if you don't feel comfortable don't look. Some places just aren't appropriate for caches either way. The area may have changed over time, changing the location from a spot that's alright for a cache to a spot that isn't. You have two courses of action, neither of which will gaurentee any action. Notify the CO and suggest the issues that have arisen make the area a bad one for a cache. The other one is an NA log to alert the reviewer, however if the cache still fits within the guidelines I'd be surprised of a reviewer will do much about it. (That's not meant to sound as if they should and they wont)

 

Unfortunately, caches end up places they shouldn't. The NM log you posted will alert people in the future about the issues with the cache and will allow them to make their own decisions about hunting the cache.

I still wouldn't make generalizations. As you point out lots of caches are in places that some portion of the geocaching community is uncomfortable with - a high muggle area, a playground, on electrical equipment, too close to a cliff, up in a tree, etc. It would be unreasonable to ban caches just because some part of the community thinks it is dangerous. When there are some issues - usually with how geocachers are perceived by the public rather than how geocachers may perceive danger, the guidelines addresses them - schools, military bases, highway bridges, railroad tracks, etc.

 

Many times the hider will not have noticed the homeless person or the homeless person moved into the area after the cache was placed. A note on the cache page lets others know the situation and often is enough to get a cache owner to move or archive the cache. But sooner or later you will have a dispute where the cache owner will say the cache is far enough away from the homeless guy's camp so there is no problem and someone who feels uncomfortable with a homeless man sleeping 200 feet away will be asking for the cache to be archived. I personally don't want to see Groundspeak or the reviewers start to enforce some distance to the nearest homeless person rule. The truth is that the best answer is that if you feel uncomfortable searching for a particular cache then stop searching and move on to the next cache.

[+rubinscube]

maybe adding a filter icon in pocket queries that has a "possible homeless encampment nearby"?

 

 

I'm actually going to agree (on some level) with the OP. Homeless encampments have no business being cache locations for a multitude of reasons. I know, if you don't feel comfortable don't look. Some places just aren't appropriate for caches either way. The area may have changed over time, changing the location from a spot that's alright for a cache to a spot that isn't. You have two courses of action, neither of which will gaurentee any action. Notify the CO and suggest the issues that have arisen make the area a bad one for a cache. The other one is an NA log to alert the reviewer, however if the cache still fits within the guidelines I'd be surprised of a reviewer will do much about it. (That's not meant to sound as if they should and they wont)

 

Unfortunately, caches end up places they shouldn't. The NM log you posted will alert people in the future about the issues with the cache and will allow them to make their own decisions about hunting the cache.

I still wouldn't make generalizations. As you point out lots of caches are in places that some portion of the geocaching community is uncomfortable with - a high muggle area, a playground, on electrical equipment, too close to a cliff, up in a tree, etc. It would be unreasonable to ban caches just because some part of the community thinks it is dangerous. When there are some issues - usually with how geocachers are perceived by the public rather than how geocachers may perceive danger, the guidelines addresses them - schools, military bases, highway bridges, railroad tracks, etc.

 

Many times the hider will not have noticed the homeless person or the homeless person moved into the area after the cache was placed. A note on the cache page lets others know the situation and often is enough to get a cache owner to move or archive the cache. But sooner or later you will have a dispute where the cache owner will say the cache is far enough away from the homeless guy's camp so there is no problem and someone who feels uncomfortable with a homeless man sleeping 200 feet away will be asking for the cache to be archived. I personally don't want to see Groundspeak or the reviewers start to enforce some distance to the nearest homeless person rule. The truth is that the best answer is that if you feel uncomfortable searching for a particular cache then stop searching and move on to the next cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

Ok #1 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they will be dangerous?

 

#2 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they are a drug user?

 

#3 - Young women? Really? Because every homeless person is a rapist right?

 

 

Some people should show some compassion (and give their head a shake) before judging other people.

 

I actually have spent a whole lot of time around homeless people so I have an idea of what is going on out there.

Even if I hadn't, the fact is that the statistics put a whole lot of them, a great percentage, as having mental problems. Go out and volunteer with them for a while, and tell me if you see different.

A great deal of them are homeless because of it.

I'm speaking of the homeless who are living in the bushes. There are homeless people who run into bad circumstances that they can't overcome and become homeless. Those people do not put up a tent under an overpass and call it home. They don't. They deal with agencies and friends and live in their car, etc.

The statistics on the permanently homeless show a great percentage with mental problems. In the time I've spent around them, I don't dispute this.

 

So what does this have to do with caching?

 

I agree, I think it was the goat, who said that he doesn't think homeless areas are good places for caches.

I don't think so either.

People who are mentally unstable and could be territorial about their space (many are) do not make great places for young women to be running across alone.

 

Don't make the mistake of labeling these people who are living in a tent under an underpass as perfectly normal in place of compassion. You can still see reality and be compassionate. Some of them are normal. More are not.

 

This is a great post, thank you. Trust me, tent or box underpass guy is most definitely not down on his luck, living in his car guy. Go ahead an be afraid 99% of the time.

 

Not necessarily homeless camp caches, although I've seen many, but just in general, I've seen many examples of reviewers excusing themselves from being the arbiter of safety. Then again, I can't explain what happened to Packanack.

[+rubinscube]

my family saw three young kids, each with what looked to be a geomate in each hand. easy 160 bucks plus their backpacks, looses change,ipods, or cellphones; kids are walking $$$.....

Edited April 28, 2012 by rubinscube

[+JesandTodd]

 

I actually have spent a whole lot of time around homeless people so I have an idea of what is going on out there.

Even if I hadn't, the fact is that the statistics put a whole lot of them, a great percentage, as having mental problems. Go out and volunteer with them for a while, and tell me if you see different.

A great deal of them are homeless because of it.

I'm speaking of the homeless who are living in the bushes. There are homeless people who run into bad circumstances that they can't overcome and become homeless. Those people do not put up a tent under an overpass and call it home. They don't. They deal with agencies and friends and live in their car, etc.

The statistics on the permanently homeless show a great percentage with mental problems. In the time I've spent around them, I don't dispute this.

 

So what does this have to do with caching?

 

I agree, I think it was the goat, who said that he doesn't think homeless areas are good places for caches.

I don't think so either.

People who are mentally unstable and could be territorial about their space (many are) do not make great places for young women to be running across alone.

 

Don't make the mistake of labeling these people who are living in a tent under an underpass as perfectly normal in place of compassion. You can still see reality and be compassionate. Some of them are normal. More are not.

 

This is a great post, thank you. Trust me, tent or box underpass guy is most definitely not down on his luck, living in his car guy. Go ahead an be afraid 99% of the time.

.

 

Kudos to both of the above posts.

 

I lived in an area with a high psych population and correlational high homeless population. Many of these people are sick. You'd be suprised with what we discharge back to the general population. If they aren't trying to kill themselves, or you, then they are likely to get discharged -even if they are in desperate need of help. There's just too many...

 

If I see any word of 'homeless camp' in the logs then I put the cache on the ignore list. If I see evidence of homeless camp then I immediately stop searching and turn around.

 

I'm a pretty compassionate nurse, (especially towards homeless and psych patients), and there's nobody on the planet that has any right to say otherwise (ever wash a homeless persons feet? Hand wash their clothes?) But a homeless camp is at NO place for a cache. No place.

[vagabond]

1. Please identify what section of the listing guidelines is an issue with this cache. You will not find "unsafe" anywhere in the listing guidelines. Volunteer cache reviewers publish caches that meet the listing guidelines following an online review.

 

2. I am moving this from the "How to" forum to the Geocaching Topics forum, since I don't see a question about how to use a site feature.

 

 

This has always been my understanding, however in the last couple of months I received a declination on a placement from the reviewer specifically referring to safety of the cache community rather than argue the point, I archived the cache. I thought it odd that the reviewer was entering into discussions of safety and I was concerned that somehow that was placing the onus of safety on the hider rather than on the seeker. My cache was in no way unsafe but I did not like the idea that somehow I was not having my cache vetted for safety of the seeker.

Unless the reviewer knows that area well they would not know the area is unsafe unless someone contacted the reviewer or maybe there was one there before and was archived for that reason.

 

None of which was the case, the only problem was that the person who was seeking a FTF ran into a police officer and apparently did not like being questioned as to what he was doing in the area, which is public property. Complained to reviewer about having to explain to the cop and the cache got archived.

if this

sounds like it might be on private property

Edited April 30, 2012 by vagabond

[+MickEMT]

Ok #1 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they will be dangerous?

 

#2 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they are a drug user?

 

#3 - Young women? Really? Because every homeless person is a rapist right?

 

 

Some people should show some compassion (and give their head a shake) before judging other people.

 

I actually have spent a whole lot of time around homeless people so I have an idea of what is going on out there.

Even if I hadn't, the fact is that the statistics put a whole lot of them, a great percentage, as having mental problems. Go out and volunteer with them for a while, and tell me if you see different.

A great deal of them are homeless because of it.

I'm speaking of the homeless who are living in the bushes. There are homeless people who run into bad circumstances that they can't overcome and become homeless. Those people do not put up a tent under an overpass and call it home. They don't. They deal with agencies and friends and live in their car, etc.

The statistics on the permanently homeless show a great percentage with mental problems. In the time I've spent around them, I don't dispute this.

 

So what does this have to do with caching?

 

I agree, I think it was the goat, who said that he doesn't think homeless areas are good places for caches.

I don't think so either.

People who are mentally unstable and could be territorial about their space (many are) do not make great places for young women to be running across alone.

 

Don't make the mistake of labeling these people who are living in a tent under an underpass as perfectly normal in place of compassion. You can still see reality and be compassionate. Some of them are normal. More are not.

 

This is a great post, thank you. Trust me, tent or box underpass guy is most definitely not down on his luck, living in his car guy. Go ahead an be afraid 99% of the time.

 

Not necessarily homeless camp caches, although I've seen many, but just in general, I've seen many examples of reviewers excusing themselves from being the arbiter of safety. Then again, I can't explain what happened to Packanack.

 

As someone with extensive inner city EMS experience, yes, be VERY wary of the wandering homeless, Mr Underpass dweller usually has some form of mental instability. Also, if someone is high on certain drugs, they can become EXTREMELY violent with little or no warning.

 

That said, the CACHER is responsible for his or her safety, NOT the reviewers. If you decide to climb a tree to get a cache, fall out and get injured, it's not the reviewers fault, it's yours. Don't exceed your physical limitations, keep your head out of your *** and be aware of your surroundings. It's called situational awareness, use it.

 

I doubt there is any reviewer that would let a cache be published that was undeniably, not to mention stupidly dangerous be published, things like, "cache is hidden inside the high voltage box, behind several bare wires" "Cache is hidden in a rattlesnake den" "cache is hidden inside an old coal mine in Centralis PA, be sure to bring your marshmallows" Obviously all of those are unsafe, unless you have some serious protective gear and specialized training. What about the other caches? Up a tree? Hey, someone could fall out and get killed, can't have that. Gotta climb a steep hill, could slip and fall, maybe even over exert yourself and have a heart attack, nope, no go on that one. Ohh by a body of water, sorry, can't take the risk someone might fall in and drown. Parking lot skirtlifter, gee, what if someone is hit by a car? No, have to get rid of those.. Hmm, come to think of it, you could get hit by a drunk driver while driving to any cache, might get someone killed.

 

Yeah, I know, a bit extreme, but where do we draw the line between the reviewers responsibility and the cachers, in my book, unless the cache is patently unsafe for the vast majority of the caching public, it's the cachers responsibility to make sure that THEY are not exceeding THEIR physical abilities, and any risk of injury or death is their own.

[Keystone]

I doubt there is any reviewer that would let a cache be published that was undeniably, not to mention stupidly dangerous be published, things like, ... "Cache is hidden in a rattlesnake den"

I would approach these examples as situations where it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that adequate permission is in place - NOT as an issue of safety. In the rattlesnake den example, it's well known that front yard caches need permission because it's private property. I would only publish after being assured that the rattlesnakes have given permission.

[+rubinscube]

This cache knowing stated to say hi to the troll under the bridge, ie homeless guy

[+DanOCan]

I would approach these examples as situations where it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that adequate permission is in place - NOT as an issue of safety. In the rattlesnake den example, it's well known that front yard caches need permission because it's private property. I would only publish after being assured that the rattlesnakes have given permission.

 

And, with that, I snorted coffee over the laptop this morning.

[+J the Goat]

I doubt there is any reviewer that would let a cache be published that was undeniably, not to mention stupidly dangerous be published, things like, ... "Cache is hidden in a rattlesnake den"

I would approach these examples as situations where it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that adequate permission is in place - NOT as an issue of safety. In the rattlesnake den example, it's well known that front yard caches need permission because it's private property. I would only publish after being assured that the rattlesnakes have given permission.

 

:laughing: :laughing:

 

Thanks Keystone, next to my coffee that's exactly what I needed this morning.

[+jellis]

From what I read there was never a problem until recently when a homeless muggle used the area for a home. And the last cache finder moved the cache so I don't see too much of an issue other then the CO may need to find a new home for it or archive it because it no longer matches the name and description. Not all homeless are drug addicts. In fact I don't see any mention in the logs of drugs. Only that cachers are nervous of homeless muggles. Hmm someday we all might be homeless.

 

you do realize that the "last finder" and the OP are one and the same?

 

anyway, any cache in a wooded (or even urban area) runs the risk that it could be the home of a transient or partying kids for a day, week, longer, who knows. Its nice that you listed a warning, but it will be up to the CO to decide whether to archive or not. The people in question may leave in a day or two anyway depending where it is.

sorry Lam I must have been too sleepy to read that part. My Bad

[Pup Patrol]

1. Please identify what section of the listing guidelines is an issue with this cache. You will not find "unsafe" anywhere in the listing guidelines. Volunteer cache reviewers publish caches that meet the listing guidelines following an online review.

 

2. I am moving this from the "How to" forum to the Geocaching Topics forum, since I don't see a question about how to use a site feature.

 

 

This has always been my understanding, however in the last couple of months I received a declination on a placement from the reviewer specifically referring to safety of the cache community rather than argue the point, I archived the cache. I thought it odd that the reviewer was entering into discussions of safety and I was concerned that somehow that was placing the onus of safety on the hider rather than on the seeker. My cache was in no way unsafe but I did not like the idea that somehow I was not having my cache vetted for safety of the seeker.

Unless the reviewer knows that area well they would not know the area is unsafe unless someone contacted the reviewer or maybe there was one there before and was archived for that reason.

 

None of which was the case, the only problem was that the person who was seeking a FTF ran into a police officer and apparently did not like being questioned as to what he was doing in the area, which is public property. Complained to reviewer about having to explain to the cop and the cache got archived.

if this

sounds like it might be on private property

 

Seems like a clear message has been misinterpreted and misrepresented.

 

How the heck one can misrepresent "private property" issues as being about "safety" is interesting, to say the least.

 

 

B.

[+Sol seaker]

I would approach these examples as situations where it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that adequate permission is in place - NOT as an issue of safety. In the rattlesnake den example, it's well known that front yard caches need permission because it's private property. I would only publish after being assured that the rattlesnakes have given permission.

 

And, with that, I snorted coffee over the laptop this morning.

 

:laughing: :laughing:

 

That was a great one!!!

 

With that explanation, then surely we must get permission from the guys in the homeless camp before we place a cache there.

 

You ask first.

 

I'm actually really surprised. I expected to come back here and find I was jumped all over. I'm glad to see people understand the situation.

 

I'm very compassionate about homelessness. It's a tough problem.

We used to have institutions for mental patients to live. It was safe and gave them meals and a place to live. Since they closed all those down, they all moved into the streets. There isn't another option for them. What can they do? They can't work a job. It's a sad situation.

I'm also compassionate about those who are homeless due to bad circumstances. I've met many of those. It's tough, but most get back on their feet and back into the workforce.

 

I wish I were rich so I could help them out more.

The US is very expensive to live in. You've got to be at the top of your game to get a good situation here. It's tough.

[+Don_J]

Ok #1 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they will be dangerous?

 

#2 - Why is it assumed that just because a guy is homeless that they are a drug user?

 

#3 - Young women? Really? Because every homeless person is a rapist right?

 

 

Some people should show some compassion (and give their head a shake) before judging other people.

 

I actually have spent a whole lot of time around homeless people so I have an idea of what is going on out there.

Even if I hadn't, the fact is that the statistics put a whole lot of them, a great percentage, as having mental problems. Go out and volunteer with them for a while, and tell me if you see different.

A great deal of them are homeless because of it.

I'm speaking of the homeless who are living in the bushes. There are homeless people who run into bad circumstances that they can't overcome and become homeless. Those people do not put up a tent under an overpass and call it home. They don't. They deal with agencies and friends and live in their car, etc.

The statistics on the permanently homeless show a great percentage with mental problems. In the time I've spent around them, I don't dispute this.

 

So what does this have to do with caching?

 

I agree, I think it was the goat, who said that he doesn't think homeless areas are good places for caches.

I don't think so either.

People who are mentally unstable and could be territorial about their space (many are) do not make great places for young women to be running across alone.

 

Don't make the mistake of labeling these people who are living in a tent under an underpass as perfectly normal in place of compassion. You can still see reality and be compassionate. Some of them are normal. More are not.

 

I'm curious as to why you single out young women? I'm a 51 yr old male that has been homeless and has worked with homeless drug addicts and alcoholics for almost twenty years. I would not blindly walk into someones camp as I wouldn't feel safe. Most of these people feel that this is their home, and you are invading it. Regardless of how one feels about the problem, one shouldn't loose sight of that simple fact. The way that I see it, intentionally placing a cache next to a homeless encampment is the same as placing it on some stranger's front lawn. Unfortunately, cache hiders do that as well.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Don_J

[+Mr.Benchmark]

 

I'm curious as to why you single out young women? I'm a 51 yr old male that has been homeless and has worked with homeless drug addicts and alcoholics for almost twenty years. I would not blindly walk into someones camp as I wouldn't feel safe. Most of these people feel that this is their home, and you are invading it. Regardless of how one feels about the problem, one shouldn't loose sight of that simple fact. The way that I see it, intentionally placing a cache next to a homeless encampment is the same as placing it on some stranger's front lawn. Unfortunately, cache hiders do that as well.

 

RubinsCube mentioned young women in his log - that's where the talk about that started:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=9506dcdb-dd88-403c-84dc-0cbc9aecf54b

 

It's not in the thread.

[+MickEMT]

I would approach these examples as situations where it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that adequate permission is in place - NOT as an issue of safety. In the rattlesnake den example, it's well known that front yard caches need permission because it's private property. I would only publish after being assured that the rattlesnakes have given permission.

 

And, with that, I snorted coffee over the laptop this morning.

 

:laughing: :laughing:

 

That was a great one!!!

 

With that explanation, then surely we must get permission from the guys in the homeless camp before we place a cache there.

 

You ask first.

 

I'm actually really surprised. I expected to come back here and find I was jumped all over. I'm glad to see people understand the situation.

 

I'm very compassionate about homelessness. It's a tough problem.

We used to have institutions for mental patients to live. It was safe and gave them meals and a place to live. Since they closed all those down, they all moved into the streets. There isn't another option for them. What can they do? They can't work a job. It's a sad situation.

I'm also compassionate about those who are homeless due to bad circumstances. I've met many of those. It's tough, but most get back on their feet and back into the workforce.

 

I wish I were rich so I could help them out more.

The US is very expensive to live in. You've got to be at the top of your game to get a good situation here. It's tough.

 

I'm not "jumping all over" you, I'm pointing out that it's the responsibility of the cacher, NOT the reviewer to determine what is "reasonably safe" for them to seek. Out on the trail, it's our responsibility to take care of ourselves. I've walked away from a number of caches when I thought it was too unsafe for me to continue, be it a terrain concern, or yes, I just thought it was an area where I might encounter some "unsavory" characters.

 

And Keystone, somehow, I suspect you would go and personally ask the snakes................ thanks for missing the point.

[+SwineFlew]

I doubt there is any reviewer that would let a cache be published that was undeniably, not to mention stupidly dangerous be published, things like, ... "Cache is hidden in a rattlesnake den"

I would approach these examples as situations where it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that adequate permission is in place - NOT as an issue of safety. In the rattlesnake den example, it's well known that front yard caches need permission because it's private property. I would only publish after being assured that the rattlesnakes have given permission.

Just read this and I had the best laugh of the day!! GOOD ONE! :laughing: :laughing:

[Keystone]

And Keystone, somehow, I suspect you would go and personally ask the snakes................ thanks for missing the point.

Oh, most definitely I'd ask. And I'm quite sure they'd give permission.

 

Professional courtesy, you know.