Dangerous caches

July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think? :huh:

July 23, 2012

As long as you are smart and prepared, why should it matter? When I started Geocaching, I was out of shape. I recently read an old log of mine on a 2.5 terrain cache from when I started caching. I made it sound like a deathtrap. Now I can buswhack up and down steep hills in sleep.

Edited July 23, 2012 by St.Matthew

July 23, 2012

For some geocachers, some geocaches are best left unfound (or, indeed, unsearched for). Other geocachers may be less than interested in safe and easy finds.

Besides, "safe place" and "dangerous" means different things to different people. I have a D4.5/T5 mystery which is both hard to solve and quite dangerous to log. People seem to have gone about it in a safe way, and they all liked the challenge of figuring out tough mental and physical problems. For others, there's the ignore list and perhaps the eternal beckoning of a tough problem followed by a stupidly dangerous undertaking. Some people like that too.

To quote a guy I know who is into different things: "If I didn't almost die, what was the point?". Extreme, yes, but to each his own. Know your limitations and leave caches outside them alone.

1.2k · July 23, 2012

If I stayed in parking lots finding caches I would get bored and quit. Unstable terrain and dangerous animals are part of being in the woods. You learn how to be safe, take precautions, and most the time there is no issue.

2.3k · July 23, 2012

We have dangerous animals in our yards here....

I prefer to be out in the woods than having a viewing party of mall parking lots. That's why I go for the caches I go for. There are some inherent dangers to that. But the reward far outweighs the risk.

1.1k · July 23, 2012

anything is unsafe with wrong training and wrong equipment..

if you think something is not safe for you.. then stay away from it,

you dont need to find all caches !! better say no and live.

let people with training and equipment handle such stuff,

and be happy there is fun for every people at every level they may like.

I kind of think of my self as one of the more wild and dare-devil kind of cachers,

we got full dive and climb equipment, and all sorts of normal safety equipment so we dont fall down,

please browse tru our picture gallery you see most family trips and kids caches

but also a few high and hard ones, we like them all :-)

but there are a few we clearly say no to, while others handle them, their own choise.

2.6k · July 23, 2012

That's what the D/T ratings and Attributes are for. If a cache seems out of your league, beyond your abilities or comfort level, you don't have to go after it, there's plenty more out there. There are lots if other folks who appreciate the challenge.

2.6k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

Actually I find it odd that there are so FEW caches in places like that....

5.7k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

What about power trails placed on DOT signs along busy four lane highways with very little room to pull over in emergency stopping only locations?

8.6k · July 23, 2012

Driving a vehicle, or walking to the grocery is no different. Hey, if the bus doesn't get you, the bear will!

Decisions... decisions... if you feel it's dangerous, don't do it. Quite simple, really.

10.2k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

What about power trails placed on DOT signs along busy four lane highways with very little room to pull over in emergency stopping only locations?

Hypothetically speaking, or are you aware of a PT that is defintely placed along a posted emergency stopping only highway? That would be a law, and the PT should be arcived.

There is no law against unstable terrain and dangerous animals in the woods. :lol:

2.6k · July 23, 2012

As others have said. Geocaching can be combined with other outdoor activities which carry some "danger". Hiking in the woods/hills/mountains carries some risk. Some caches require boating, rock climbing, caving, etc - all which have some risk (but the risk can be minimised if you take precautions, have the right equipment, etc). The D/T ratings (especially the T) should give you an indication of what you are in for. Higher D/T caches tend to also have more information on the page explaining what is involved.

I found the bit about "harmful animals" interesting - as the OP is from the UK. The scariest animal I've come across are cattle. (Though we do have the occasional Adder - I've never seen one in the wild though). There are some places in the world where "harmful animals" are much more common. E.g. you could find a poisonous snake or spider in an otherwise very ordinary place; i.e. going outside exposes you to danger. Or lions and tigers and bears...

1.8k · July 23, 2012

Hmmmmmmmm, know your personal limits and stay within them.

10.1k · July 23, 2012

Ad would someone tell the bears to stop chewing on my caches!

6.1k · July 23, 2012

All caches are dangerous. You can trip over your shoelaces in a parking lot and die of a cerebral hemorrhage, or get bitten by a poisonous spider or snake in a small park. Or be "planking" on a seesaw in a playground, and have a chunk of raw sewage blue ice fall from the sky from an airplane, hit the other end of the seesaw and send you flying in the air, and impale you on a fence or some other object. September 10, 2010 North Perkin, IL

Edited July 23, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

July 23, 2012

My issue isn't with dangerous caches, I do go after a few myself. I take issue when a dangerous cahce isn't listed properly as such - i.e. proper raitings, attributes, and listings of any special equipment one may need. Yes, I understand when you get ot a cacher or at least in the area of such you can then determine if it is beyond your ability or current gear, but that is a bit of a waste of time.

5.7k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

What about power trails placed on DOT signs along busy four lane highways with very little room to pull over in emergency stopping only locations?

Hypothetically speaking, or are you aware of a PT that is defintely placed along a posted emergency stopping only highway? That would be a law, and the PT should be arcived.

There is no law against unstable terrain and dangerous animals in the woods.

Yes, I am aware of one. And listings are being added to it. In my home State of Virgina hides on VDOT property are illegal, but this one is near me in Tennessee. Film cans placed at/on TDOT signs along a busy four lane highway without pull over sites. It's hard for me to believe this geocache listing service would publish them. They are all owned by a sock puppet account as best I can tell.

10.2k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

What about power trails placed on DOT signs along busy four lane highways with very little room to pull over in emergency stopping only locations?

Hypothetically speaking, or are you aware of a PT that is defintely placed along a posted emergency stopping only highway? That would be a law, and the PT should be arcived.

There is no law against unstable terrain and dangerous animals in the woods.

Yes, I am aware of one. And listings are being added to it. In my home State of Virgina hides on VDOT property are illegal, but this one is near me in Tennessee. Film cans placed at/on TDOT signs along a busy four lane highway without pull over sites. It's hard for me to believe this geocache listing service would publish them. They are all owned by a sock puppet account as best I can tell.

Eh, the power trail people are getting more reckless. This is just my opinion, of course. Just a few months ago, a guy from Iowa said there was a power trail along a 4 lane diveded U.S. Highway

I can't believe they'd publish it, you can't believe they'd publish it, and some guy in Iowa can't believe they'd publish it. But rest assured there will be an endless parade of smiley seekers. But anyways, the presence or absence of "Emergency Stopping Only" are the big thing here. If they're there, the PT becomes illegal, in my opinion. It they're not, it's just a dumb road to use for a power trail.

1.3k · July 23, 2012

It's hard for me to believe this geocache listing service would publish them.

Reviewers are not the "safety police"

1.4k · July 23, 2012

It's hard for me to believe this geocache listing service would publish them.

Reviewers are not the "safety police"

I don't think his point was safety. The caches he was refering to may be illegal to place. The reviewers shouldn't publish a cache in an illegal spot.

Edited July 24, 2012 by uxorious

5.8k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

As long as I know what I'm getting into, I tend to enjoy the caches in rougher terrain the most. I like pushing my limits, within reason. And if a cache is too muh for me, I know enough to walk away.

As far as dangerous animals, I don't think I've runa cross any. By dangerous animals, I mean those that would attack me no matter what -- vicious dogs, aggressive livestock. I've come across a snake or scorpion or spider or two or five, but I know better than to just stick my hand into a potential cache hidey hole without first having an idea what else might be in there.

July 23, 2012

My issue isn't with dangerous caches, I do go after a few myself. I take issue when a dangerous cahce isn't listed properly as such - i.e. proper raitings, attributes, and listings of any special equipment one may need. Yes, I understand when you get ot a cacher or at least in the area of such you can then determine if it is beyond your ability or current gear, but that is a bit of a waste of time.

My point exactly it is better to go looking in areas that you're certain of but that's only my opinion other people think differently but again You can ever know what you need if you go looking for dangerous caches

3.8k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

Well whats a harmful animal? Honestly I'm more likely to be stung by a bee, or bitten by a poisonous spider, which could be found at the local LPC, than to even see a rattle snake, or mountain lion on my caching trip, and yet all 4 of those animals are found, and have a decent population in my caching area. It up to you to decide if you should go on. If you get hurt it's your fault, not Groundspeaks, or the CO's, simply because you want to do it. No-one makes you. Of course it would be nice to know that you're in for rock climbing before you show up to GZ in flip-flops. Honestly there is NO cache location I wouldn't attempt. I might decide it's beyond my abilities or comfort level and turn back, but that's my decision.

Edited July 23, 2012 by T.D.M.22

10.1k · July 23, 2012

I guess that we need to find someone to hold OP's hand whenever he/she decided to look for a cache? And maybe EMS, in case s/he trips on a rock?

I've met fifteen or twenty bear while geocaching. (I think it was Bruno Bear that scared me the worst. Steep rocky area. He was coming up the trail. Nowhere for me to go!) Fortunately, he decided to leave the trail, when he heard me.

Know your limitations and fears. Hunt caches whre you are confortable. Don't expect people to babysit you every moment you are out of the house.

(No. Bruno did not chew on amy of my caches!)

5.6k · July 23, 2012

Of course it would be nice to know that you're in for rock climbing before you show up to GZ in flip-flops.

Even that's flexible. I've climbed a 5.4 route in my Teva's once...

July 23, 2012

By dangerous animals, I mean those that would attack me no matter what -- vicious dogs, aggressive livestock.

... doomsday preppers ... :unsure:

7.9k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

Well, sure!

But if people keep going out to find these caches, there must be a segment of the community that likes them.

If people keep finding them, people will keep placing them.

Why attempt to climb K2?

It's dangerous, you could die.

Why attempt to break the world record for breath-hold free diving?

It's dangerous, you could die.

Why attempt to break the land speed record?

It's dangerous, you could die!

10.2k · July 23, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

Well whats a harmful animal?

The OP is from the UK. Badgers. Definitely Badgers. :lol:

July 23, 2012

My issue isn't with dangerous caches, I do go after a few myself. I take issue when a dangerous cahce isn't listed properly as such - i.e. proper raitings, attributes, and listings of any special equipment one may need. Yes, I understand when you get ot a cacher or at least in the area of such you can then determine if it is beyond your ability or current gear, but that is a bit of a waste of time.

My point exactly it is better to go looking in areas that you're certain of but that's only my opinion other people think differently but again You can ever know what you need if you go looking for dangerous caches

Not true.

Read the description, read the logs, check the attributes, check the ratings. Then go back and do it again and if you're still not sure, it may not be for you.

July 23, 2012

The OP has logged 3 caches all 1.5/1.5.

Perhaps he/she walked past a badger hole on the way to one.

BTW we have badgers, coyotes, bears, rattlesnakes, cougars, spiders and Poison Oak in Oregon. I fear the Poison Oak the most.

I just got my average terrain back up to 2.00.

I like logscaler & Red 's disclaimer the best. I have copied and pasted it on a couple of my most dangerous caches.

July 24, 2012

Going a bit off the original topic here. I looked at the 3 finds the OP has, saw there were photos posted, but they had nothing to do with the cache and nothing to do with geocaching at all.

Printing cards with those pictures to leave in a cache as a signature item would be a great idea.

But talking as a cache owner, they don't belong in the image gallery. just my opinion.

5.7k · July 24, 2012

It's hard for me to believe this geocache listing service would publish them.

Reviewers are not the "safety police"

I don't think his point was safety. The caches he was refering to maybe illegal to place. The reviewers shouldn't publish a cache in an illegal spot.

Exactly my point. I do expect this site to follow Laws. Listings like the ones I am referring to is why geocaches are banned in Virginia on property maintained by VDOT. When I complain it will not be to Groundspeak, but TDOT. We geocachers are losing places to legally hide caches and now more places require permits, like State Parks and NFS propertys. I'm not paying $59 per year to place a geocache on NFS property for you to get a smiley.

3.7k · July 24, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

Just because something's listed on the cache page doesn't mean there's a high risk of being harmed.

If there really was a high risk of something bad happening, I believe that 99.9% of the time, the cache owner would NOT choose to place the cache there.

We have lots of cougars here and also I have cached in places with lots of bears. Lots of warning signs, but no wild animal encounters.

Edited July 24, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

1.1k · July 24, 2012

>Going a bit off the original topic here. I looked at the 3 finds the OP has,

>saw there were photos posted, but they had nothing to do with the cache and nothing to do with geocaching at all.

>Printing cards with those pictures to leave in a cache as a signature item would be a great idea.

> But talking as a cache owner, they don't belong in the image gallery. just my opinion.

OMG !! well I like that opera too, alot actually..

but posting those pictures into cache logs, is just soo wrong.

please upload pictures you took your self, of your and your group

of things your saw or did at that very cache location,

such pictures are fun for you and others to look at,

2.8k · July 24, 2012

or get bitten by a poisonous spider or snake in a small park.

As a reviewer pointed out to me once, snakes and spiders are venomous, not poisonous.

July 24, 2012

Exactly my point. I do expect this site to follow Laws. Listings like the ones I am referring to is why geocaches are banned in Virginia on property maintained by VDOT.

How long did it take the Reviewer to respond to your NA log, or the e-mail pointing out that the cache is violating guidelines?

Reviewers don't visit caches before publishing so they can't know if the hiding style/location violates the law, and depending on the volume they may not look to closely at the maps to know how close it comes to areas we're prohibited from entering. One of the problems you've cited is the requirement to park illegally, if there's a road/trail/river that runs parallel to the highway, then there might be legal access to the caches (no idea how Reviewers gauge hiking/bushwhacking into accessibility). Unlike railroads, I'm pretty certain there is no proximity limitation to roads so placing a cache near one does not violate the guidelines.

This is also setting aside shenanigans like the CO entering the coords ~100 feet from the highway, then editing the listing once it's published.

When I complain it will not be to Groundspeak, but TDOT. We geocachers are losing places to legally hide caches and now more places require permits, like State Parks and NFS propertys.

If that's your attitude, then it's not just the bad COs who are depriving us of places. Groundspeak has a system in place to handle illegal caches that do manage to slip through the screening process, you're choosing not to use it in favor of going to a power that will outright deprive us of locations.

3.4k · July 24, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

There are Dangerous (you should be physically and mentally up to the challenge, plus well equipped) and Dangerous Stupid (People, no matter how well prepared, will probably be injured or die in the pursuit of this one.) It's quite a distinction.

I was hunting drive ups in 106 degree heat on Sunday, which is dangerous unless I have a LOT of water and keep my health in mind. Other times of the year not dangerous at all.

So always evaluate the situation, if you don't feel you can do it safely, DON'T.

If the cache is in the bottom of a pit filled with Black Mambas, you probably would be a good cacher for reporting it.

5.7k · July 24, 2012

Exactly my point. I do expect this site to follow Laws. Listings like the ones I am referring to is why geocaches are banned in Virginia on property maintained by VDOT.

How long did it take the Reviewer to respond to your NA log, or the e-mail pointing out that the cache is violating guidelines?

Reviewers don't visit caches before publishing so they can't know if the hiding style/location violates the law, and depending on the volume they may not look to closely at the maps to know how close it comes to areas we're prohibited from entering. One of the problems you've cited is the requirement to park illegally, if there's a road/trail/river that runs parallel to the highway, then there might be legal access to the caches (no idea how Reviewers gauge hiking/bushwhacking into accessibility). Unlike railroads, I'm pretty certain there is no proximity limitation to roads so placing a cache near one does not violate the guidelines.

This is also setting aside shenanigans like the CO entering the coords ~100 feet from the highway, then editing the listing once it's published.

When I complain it will not be to Groundspeak, but TDOT. We geocachers are losing places to legally hide caches and now more places require permits, like State Parks and NFS propertys.

If that's your attitude, then it's not just the bad COs who are depriving us of places. Groundspeak has a system in place to handle illegal caches that do manage to slip through the screening process, you're choosing not to use it in favor of going to a power that will outright deprive us of locations.

Groundspeak makes a living listing geocaches. TDOT is more interested in public saftey, and I've been in this game long enough to know what posting a NA on someones listing gets you. An attitude like yours normally follows. :mad: But if you must know, the reviewer was contacted by PM and that's as far as it went. :huh:

6.1k · July 24, 2012

or get bitten by a poisonous spider or snake in a small park.

As a reviewer pointed out to me once, snakes and spiders are venomous, not poisonous.

They are poisonous if you inhale or eat one, which isn't too difficult if you happen to hike, or ride a motorcycle or mountain bike the way that I do.

5.7k · July 24, 2012

Eh, the power trail people are getting more reckless. This is just my opinion, of course. Just a few months ago, a guy from Iowa said there was a power trail along a 4 lane diveded U.S. Highway

Well, this power trail is along a 4 lane divided U.S. Highway. But, after checking into things a little better, there is a 120 mile long bike trail along the highway. :anicute:

So there would be room for stopping and geocaching on a bike quite safely. Not that the power trail is being used in this fashion, and pulling back onto the road into 55 mile per hour traffic with a vehicle does present somewhat of a safty concern. Also the emergency stopping only law, only applys to motor vehicles.

So when the day time heat and the evening T-storms go away, I'll hop my fat butt on my bike and go log me some power trail caches. :anitongue:

1k · July 24, 2012

One man's danger is another man's adventure. I don't have a problem with that, as long as the descriptions are fairly accurate.

It *does* annoy me quite a bit when I go after a 1.5 or a 2 terrain cache wearing shorts in 100 degree heat only to find out climbing a tree or heavy bushwhacking is required. I would have saved that for another day if I had known.

6.5k · July 24, 2012

I suspect we won't hear back from the OP. But I got to wondering, do other recreational activity forums have similar discussions?

Do skiers debate if there should be double black diamond trails?

Do cooks debate if there should be high fat/triple bacon recipes, or those with a lot of chiles to spice things up?

Do cyclists debate on road vs. trail. vs. extreme trail with safety as the main concern?

And what do skydivers debate about? :huh:

6.2k · July 24, 2012

And what do skydivers debate about?

BASE jumping?

18.9k · July 24, 2012

Most outdoor "dangers" can be easily overcome with preparation, planning, fitness level, equipment or some combination of them. If you poses the knowledge and skills to reduce the hazard to an acceptable comfort level - enjoy!!

July 24, 2012

or get bitten by a poisonous spider or snake in a small park.

As a reviewer pointed out to me once, snakes and spiders are venomous, not poisonous.

They are poisonous if you inhale or eat one, which isn't too difficult if you happen to hike, or ride a motorcycle or mountain bike the way that I do.

yum

July 24, 2012

Do cooks debate if there should be high fat/triple bacon recipes[...]

Vegan chefs?

7.9k · July 24, 2012

They are poisonous if you inhale or eat one, which isn't too difficult if you happen to hike, or ride a motorcycle or mountain bike the way that I do.

I'll never forget the first time I inhaled a sidewinder while mountain biking...

What a rush!

14k · July 25, 2012

I suspect we won't hear back from the OP. But I got to wondering, do other recreational activity forums have similar discussions?

Do skiers debate if there should be double black diamond trails?

An interesting question. I used to participate in the rec.skiing newsgroup and although I don't recall a discussion about eliminating double black diamond trails but I have seen some discussion about weather or not some people should be attempting them. I've never quite understood the purpose of "double black diamond" ratings. I spent a *lot* of time skiing at Squaw Valley where the highest rating is a black diamond and there are quite a few black diamond runs such as the west face of KT22, the north wall of headwall, and others that are likely *much* more difficult than a double black diamond run at a smaller resort. Ski runs are typcially rated relative to other runs within the same area, and the double black diamond rating is more of a marketing ploy that preys upon those that feel they've accomplished something significant because they've skied a "double black diamond" run. Coincidentally, I suspect that there are a lot of 5/5 caches that are similarly overrated to encourage those that want to claim that they've found a 5/5 cache.

To me, it boils down to "what are the consequences of a failure?". If someone attempt a "dangerous" geocache, the consequences of a failure in negotiating the terrain successfully might result in injury or death to the geocacher. When someone attempts a ski run beyond their skill level they can put others that *do* have the skills to ski that run in danger. I've seen more than a few collisions (and had to avoid a few as well) when someone tried to ski a run that was well beyond their skill level. Not only are they putting themselves at risk but they're putting others at risk for doing something dangerous.

In the case of geocaching in "dangerous" locations, even if they're not putting other geocachers at risk, there is still the possibility of putting rescue personnel at risk, or at the very least incurring monetary costs associated with rescue efforts.

A sport that has a rating system which actually takes into account the consequences of a failure is whitewater kayaking/canoeing/rafting. One of the criteria which determines a stretch of river is the relative consequences of failing to run the section without capsizing. It even considers how close a particular section of river is to a road or access to emergency services. If caches were similarly rated, a cache which required climbing a tree in a city park might be rated less than a cache which required climbing a tree at a location not easily accessible by emergency vehicles and personnel.

10.2k · July 25, 2012

I suspect we won't hear back from the OP. But I got to wondering, do other recreational activity forums have similar discussions?

Do skiers debate if there should be double black diamond trails?

Do cooks debate if there should be high fat/triple bacon recipes, or those with a lot of chiles to spice things up?

Do cyclists debate on road vs. trail. vs. extreme trail with safety as the main concern?

And what do skydivers debate about?

Skydivers don't debate, because they have a multi-tiered very complex scoring system. Because you know what? That's what that crazy-arsed Terracaching.com scoring system is based on. Seriously, I kid you not.

Eh, the power trail people are getting more reckless. This is just my opinion, of course. Just a few months ago, a guy from Iowa said there was a power trail along a 4 lane diveded U.S. Highway

Well, this power trail is along a 4 lane divided U.S. Highway. But, after checking into things a little better, there is a 120 mile long bike trail along the highway.

So there would be room for stopping and geocaching on a bike quite safely. Not that the power trail is being used in this fashion, and pulling back onto the road into 55 mile per hour traffic with a vehicle does present somewhat of a safty concern. Also the emergency stopping only law, only applys to motor vehicles.

So when the day time heat and the evening T-storms go away, I'll hop my fat butt on my bike and go log me some power trail caches.

So of course you were correct that it was an Emergency Stopping Only U.S. Highway, but there's a bike trail along it. I am not the least bit opposed to Power Trails along bike trails, or Rails to trails. I have done one, and may do another some day. The long one starting in Ashtabula, Ohio, and going south into a rural area cones to mind. What I dislike, and wouldn't do, is if they're 100% micros. If you're going to place a PT, you can't afford a few Lock-n-Locks here and there to break up your free pill bottles or film canisters zip-tied to trees? C'mon now. You don't think crazed smiley seekers who come from all over the place to rack up the numbers wouldn't like to drop a Travel Bug or two?

38.2k · July 25, 2012

Isn't it a bit odd that some caches are in places that are dangerous with harmful animals and unstable terrain ?

Although some people like adventure is it better/easier to get one in a safer place what do you think?

What about power trails placed on DOT signs along busy four lane highways with very little room to pull over in emergency stopping only locations?

Hypothetically speaking, or are you aware of a PT that is defintely placed along a posted emergency stopping only highway? That would be a law, and the PT should be arcived.

There is no law against unstable terrain and dangerous animals in the woods.

Yes, I am aware of one. And listings are being added to it. In my home State of Virgina hides on VDOT property are illegal, but this one is near me in Tennessee. Film cans placed at/on TDOT signs along a busy four lane highway without pull over sites. It's hard for me to believe this geocache listing service would publish them. They are all owned by a sock puppet account as best I can tell.

Eh, the power trail people are getting more reckless. This is just my opinion, of course. Just a few months ago, a guy from Iowa said there was a power trail along a 4 lane diveded U.S. Highway

I can't believe they'd publish it, you can't believe they'd publish it, and some guy in Iowa can't believe they'd publish it. But rest assured there will be an endless parade of smiley seekers. But anyways, the presence or absence of "Emergency Stopping Only" are the big thing here. If they're there, the PT becomes illegal, in my opinion. It they're not, it's just a dumb road to use for a power trail.

It's illegal to stop on a highway in many states unless its an emergency. If the cache is meant to be accessed illegally then perhaps a NA log is in order.

Dangerous caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment