VDOT Bans

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

SC, perhaps?

 

Geocachers spend money on gas, food, lodging & etc. Frankly, "powertrails" draw more geocachers.

 

Lament the demise of tupperware in the woods all you want, numbers will draw more people Some percentage of them will spend more time in any given area doing what the numbers poohers consider "real caches"., but they wouldn't be there if not for numbers.

 

You want government to listen? Give them their own numbers.

 

Pretty simple.

 

VA has done other things recently, some of which make caching more inconvenient even "in the woods". It's very close to me, I intend to avoid spending money there...

[+Lexmarks567]

Forget it. We need a delete button.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Lexmarks567

[+Lexmarks567]

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

Those are just chargers for cell phones Ipods Iphones etc. the total power draw is not even that of a 5000 BTU window Air conditioner.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Lexmarks567

[+Treknschmidt]

Some CO's don't take into account common sense and safety. GC33GRH Was placed on an island of land bordered by three major highways- the only way to access it was to stop on one of these roads. There are no designated stop areas and to boot there is a major busy truck stop on the corner.

Oh, and it was on land owned by the Ministry of Transportation without permission. When they found out about it the terms "disaster waiting to happen" and "grossly negligent to put people there" were used. I would imagine this raised a few red flags and they, like other jurisdictions they will come out with their own policy soon enough. All because one CO was more interested in his cache than the well being of others.

 

And yes, it was me that brought this to the local community safety committee I sit on, the local police force and the ministry officials- all of us were in agreement. Call me a "cache cop" if you want- I will NOT sit around and let other geocachers put the people in my community at undue risk for the sake of a game.

On the same hand Cachers looking for this cache should also have had enough sense to realize the danger they were placing themselves in, and taken action to be pro-active and report the situation. Instead they gave it a bunch of favourite points. I think we are in an age where common sense and critical thinking are things of the past.

 

On another note- if a reviewer had taken a close look this one should not have been published int he first place.

I have asked GS to specifically detail how reviewers are selected and what type of training/guidance they receive- so far they just wont answer me. I find it concerning that I have found caches that clearly violate the guidelines (most in a minor way) that are approved by reviewers, then later on logged by the same reviewer as a find (under their caching name), yes we know who they are here, rather than dealt with as they should be.

 

People get so wrapped up and obsessed in this game that they ignore some of the basic principals that will keep it "healthy" In the end Geocaching will suffer with more rules and bans placed on it by outside agencies- Like provincial, state and federal agencies. It is already happening. What is GS doing about it?

 

I'm kind of confused by this you claim to be part of a community group concerned with safety. There was no NA log or mention of this at all on the listing. It does appear to have gone missing several times. It was archived because the owner took a long time to do maintenance. You also make mention of a reviewer logging this under their own name, don't see that either. Is there really any truth to anything you wrote here or are you conveniently spinning a web to perpetuate your views?

[+Ike 13]

This isn't the first and won't be the last. I forget which state it was in but in 2005 a law maker proposed a bill that would ban geocaches in all cemeteries, archeological sites, and historical properties statewide. A bunch of geocachers from that state worked tirelessly to make sure that the bill would not passed in to law and they succeeded. It takes a lot of time and effort to get a government to listen to reason but if you get organized it can be done.

That was SC. The law as proposed would have forbidden use of GPS in these areas. So I think technically you couldn't use a Nuvi in downtown Charleston. Oh and the event that caused that to happen wasn't caused by cachers we were just blamed because there was a cache nearby.

[+TL&MinBHIL]

I'm assuming that that's not a cache and is just here for shock value

 

Every one of your caches is dangerous. Every one of mine is. They all pose a threat to whoever seeks them. Lets just archive them all and call it a day. I maintain that safety issues should not be addressed by GS. Legal issues, permission issues, landowner/agency requests? All yes. Judging for safety is in the hands of an individual. If you're enough of an uh.... daredevil to reach into exposed wiring to either place or retrieve a cache, that's all on you. That's dumb. You've made a dumb decision. That's nobody elses fault but your own. If you decide to walk on a busy road to get an altoids tin from the guardrail and you get hit by a car, that's on you. Repelling; on you. Scuba? Yup, that too. Risking getting stung by a bee at a park? Yes. All on the seeker. To suggest otherwise is jsut evidence of the lack of accountability that our culutre seems to have taken on. We're all responsible for our own decisions. If somebody makes a poor decision, they suffer the consequences.

 

I don't advocate caches like the above listed train wrecks. I'd love to see a ban on guardrail caches, walmart parking lot micros, and the like. Not, however due to safety or even quality. Quality means different things to different people as well. The permission issue is where these fall into problems usually though, and like I've stated before, caches placed without permission affect the game for those of us who play by the rules.

The picture of all the plugs in the outlet reminds me of "A Christmas Story."

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly about taking responsibility for one's own actions. Unfortunately, as you also mentioned, accountability isn't as much a part of today's society as it once was. Where there's "danger," instead of holding those responsible for choosing to risk that danger, it has become the norm to ban the act that could possibly put people at risk. My family & I have safely found countless guardrail caches. How? We're responsible and careful. If it happens to be a little bit sketchy and there are cars present, I'm responsible enough not to send my son out, first & foremost, and to stay in the grass and always keep an eye out. You can't lay all your trust in the drivers around you, you have to take responsibility in your own hands.

 

I'm not against guardrail caches, unless they're on an insanely busy stretch of road with no where to safely park to get to it. I also support LPC's because they give people who aren't as able-bodied as others the opportunity to enjoy this game. But I do respect your reasons for wanting them banned. Most people here who ask they be banned do so because they don't like them personally. That's silly. Maybe some cachers don't like bison tubes hanging in trees, should they ask GS to ban them? At least you offer a legitimate, well thought out reason (permission) behind wanting them banned. I can respect that.

 

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

But it's not glaringly obvious safety issues that are going to cause drama between reviewers and potential cache owners *if* reviewers considered safety as a criteria for publishing a cache.

 

It's the borderline cases where a CO considers it to be reasonable safe and the reviewer does not, or the case where the reviewer considers a cache safe enough to be published, then someone comes along and thinks it's too dangerous and should be archived.

 

Consider a cache hidden in a tree. If it's 10 feet off the ground is that too dangerous? How about 15 or 20? Every reviewer and every cache owner is going to have their own subjective opinion on the relative safety of a hide, and when they don't agree there's going to be drama.

Exactly. If someone is going to ask that guardrail caches be banned because they are dangerous, what about banning mountain caches that are only accessible to a climber? Or an ocean cache that's only accessible to scuba divers?

[4wheelin_fool]

Some CO's don't take into account common sense and safety. GC33GRH Was placed on an island of land bordered by three major highways- the only way to access it was to stop on one of these roads. There are no designated stop areas and to boot there is a major busy truck stop on the corner.

Oh, and it was on land owned by the Ministry of Transportation without permission. When they found out about it the terms "disaster waiting to happen" and "grossly negligent to put people there" were used. I would imagine this raised a few red flags and they, like other jurisdictions they will come out with their own policy soon enough. All because one CO was more interested in his cache than the well being of others.

 

And yes, it was me that brought this to the local community safety committee I sit on, the local police force and the ministry officials- all of us were in agreement. Call me a "cache cop" if you want- I will NOT sit around and let other geocachers put the people in my community at undue risk for the sake of a game.

On the same hand Cachers looking for this cache should also have had enough sense to realize the danger they were placing themselves in, and taken action to be pro-active and report the situation. Instead they gave it a bunch of favourite points. I think we are in an age where common sense and critical thinking are things of the past.

 

On another note- if a reviewer had taken a close look this one should not have been published int he first place.

I have asked GS to specifically detail how reviewers are selected and what type of training/guidance they receive- so far they just wont answer me. I find it concerning that I have found caches that clearly violate the guidelines (most in a minor way) that are approved by reviewers, then later on logged by the same reviewer as a find (under their caching name), yes we know who they are here, rather than dealt with as they should be.

 

People get so wrapped up and obsessed in this game that they ignore some of the basic principals that will keep it "healthy" In the end Geocaching will suffer with more rules and bans placed on it by outside agencies- Like provincial, state and federal agencies. It is already happening. What is GS doing about it?

 

I'm kind of confused by this you claim to be part of a community group concerned with safety. There was no NA log or mention of this at all on the listing. It does appear to have gone missing several times. It was archived because the owner took a long time to do maintenance. You also make mention of a reviewer logging this under their own name, don't see that either. Is there really any truth to anything you wrote here or are you conveniently spinning a web to perpetuate your views?

 

There are a few people that get wrapped up and obsessed with caching, then there are others that get wrapped up and obsessed with imposing their view of safety. Eventually it becomes a battle between incompatible OCD disorders, like a steel cage wrestling match between the Rainman and Monk, and issues about the actual cache become meaningless, as both sides just want to prove the other wrong.

 

If someone has an issue with safety, all that needs to be done is for someone to contact the property manager or owner and describe the activity and ask if poses any problems. If the CO contacts them first, it may be better than if someone from a rougue community group who feels ignored does it. A rappelling cache in a rappelling legal area would be fine, but a guardrail hide in a dangerous spot not condoned by the DOT may not be.

[+AneMae]

Some CO's don't take into account common sense and safety. GC33GRH Was placed on an island of land bordered by three major highways- the only way to access it was to stop on one of these roads. There are no designated stop areas and to boot there is a major busy truck stop on the corner.

Oh, and it was on land owned by the Ministry of Transportation without permission. When they found out about it the terms "disaster waiting to happen" and "grossly negligent to put people there" were used. I would imagine this raised a few red flags and they, like other jurisdictions they will come out with their own policy soon enough. All because one CO was more interested in his cache than the well being of others.

 

And yes, it was me that brought this to the local community safety committee I sit on, the local police force and the ministry officials- all of us were in agreement. Call me a "cache cop" if you want- I will NOT sit around and let other geocachers put the people in my community at undue risk for the sake of a game.

On the same hand Cachers looking for this cache should also have had enough sense to realize the danger they were placing themselves in, and taken action to be pro-active and report the situation. Instead they gave it a bunch of favourite points. I think we are in an age where common sense and critical thinking are things of the past.

 

On another note- if a reviewer had taken a close look this one should not have been published int he first place.

I have asked GS to specifically detail how reviewers are selected and what type of training/guidance they receive- so far they just wont answer me. I find it concerning that I have found caches that clearly violate the guidelines (most in a minor way) that are approved by reviewers, then later on logged by the same reviewer as a find (under their caching name), yes we know who they are here, rather than dealt with as they should be.

 

People get so wrapped up and obsessed in this game that they ignore some of the basic principals that will keep it "healthy" In the end Geocaching will suffer with more rules and bans placed on it by outside agencies- Like provincial, state and federal agencies. It is already happening. What is GS doing about it?

 

I'm kind of confused by this you claim to be part of a community group concerned with safety. There was no NA log or mention of this at all on the listing. It does appear to have gone missing several times. It was archived because the owner took a long time to do maintenance. You also make mention of a reviewer logging this under their own name, don't see that either. Is there really any truth to anything you wrote here or are you conveniently spinning a web to perpetuate your views?

 

You have misread the post- I did not refer to a reviewer logging that cache in particular- it was another one I came across- One clearly on Priv. Prop. without permission. Oh the web I am spinning!

[+Treknschmidt]

Did I misread the rest of the post also?

[+Treknschmidt]

Okay maybe I will get myself in trouble for speaking out but really it needs to be said. You are very quick to point fingers and play the blame game. The Ontario reviewers (all 5 of them) are VOLUNTEERS they do not get paid, they hold regular jobs and do what they do for the betterment of the game. It is not their job to police every single safety issue that you feel should be addressed. If it's unsafe in your eyes don't look for it, its not your place to get the whole world archived although you seem to feel it is. You don't need to look out for my safety, I can do that myself. Secondly why do you always "assume" it was placed on private property without permission? You placed a cache in a Conservation Area and made no mention of it in your description, that doesn't mean I "assume" its on private property it means I "assume" you have proper permission. Why? Because I trust that most people abide by the rules. Apparently I am naive!!

[+Don_J]

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

[scary picture removed]

 

I would expect any reasonable person/cacher to do the right thing when they come up on something as obvious as this.

No, my word is not gospel, but it has gotten 100% of the caches I posted NA logs for dealt with, and made caching not only safer but better in my community . So apparently my words do have power.

Bottom line: Step up and do the right thing when you see something that is clearly wrong and places people at risk.

That could be anything from an NA log to let a reviewer decide to removing it on the spot- that would be your call to make.

I do not sit on fences- I take actions.

 

As we have seen other organizations (like the VDOT) are taking actions as well. Bad CO's and cachers made this mess, it will be up to the good ones to try to turn it around.

 

A needs-archived on a clearly unsafe cache doesn't work up here:

 

 

Apparently the reviewers are not the safety police

 

If I saw something like that, I wouldn't be posting NA logs. I'd be reporting it to my city's street lighting district.

[+Don_J]

Laws are different everywhere- however in many jurisdictions, If someone got hurt at this cache, let say electrocuted, and they could show that GS, the Reviewer, CO etc.... were aware of the potential hazards and chose not to do anything about it- I would say you would have a good civil case for negligence etc....

All you have to do is convince 12 people, and in a civil case it is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt. It is simply on the basis of probabilities. (Think OJ- he got off criminally but not civilly)

Anyone can say that "they are not responsible" That doesn't make one immune from lawsuits etc....

Even if one were sued and found not negligent think of the entire mess it would make in the mean-time- legal bills, stress, accusations, media reports etc....

 

Why risk it? I can understand why many groups/places would not want caches on their lands- they simply don't want to deal with a potential mess- so it is easier to say no. GS and cachers need to be out there being pro-active- and not simply saying we are not responsible for what we do.

 

And caches like the one you posted above NEED to be dealt with by reviewers. Period.

 

In the US there are such things as "Attractive Nuisances" laws. If it can be proven that I allowed a situation to exists that attracted a person to injure themselves, I can be held responsible. The person who placed the cache in an open lamp post could be held responsible. Where Groundspeak fits in will hopefully never be tested. A good example is if you own a business and you are aware that skateboarders are using your stairway railing to perform stunts. If you don't do anything to stop it, such as posting "No Skateboarding" signs, and some kid hurts himself, he could drag you into court and you might just be held responsible. Attaching a cache to live wiring, asking people to look for it and then expecting to be totally immune from liability is likely to get you a big surprise.

[+AneMae]

Okay maybe I will get myself in trouble for speaking out but really it needs to be said. You are very quick to point fingers and play the blame game. The Ontario reviewers (all 5 of them) are VOLUNTEERS they do not get paid, they hold regular jobs and do what they do for the betterment of the game. It is not their job to police every single safety issue that you feel should be addressed. If it's unsafe in your eyes don't look for it, its not your place to get the whole world archived although you seem to feel it is. You don't need to look out for my safety, I can do that myself. Secondly why do you always "assume" it was placed on private property without permission? You placed a cache in a Conservation Area and made no mention of it in your description, that doesn't mean I "assume" its on private property it means I "assume" you have proper permission. Why? Because I trust that most people abide by the rules. Apparently I am naive!!

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Volunteer reviewers do have a role to play in some cases of safety issues- what role and what level is something GS needs to set out. But yes they do indeed have a role and should be trained for these things. It is simply not enough to turn a blind eye and say we are not responsible. They need to be accountable.

If it is unsafe- I personally will not look away, I will deal with it as I see fit.

No assumptions have been made, evidence is gathered and analyzed and appropriate actions are taken. As a cacher I see this as part of my role. Like using appropriate tools such as email messages to NA to get issues addressed- each case is different.

[+Don_J]

Stuff like this doesn't help our case.

 

http://augustafreepress.com/2012/08/13/vdot-memorial-closed-temporarily-due-to-geocache/

[+Treknschmidt]

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Volunteer reviewers do have a role to play in some cases of safety issues- what role and what level is something GS needs to set out. But yes they do indeed have a role and should be trained for these things. It is simply not enough to turn a blind eye and say we are not responsible. They need to be accountable.

If it is unsafe- I personally will not look away, I will deal with it as I see fit.

No assumptions have been made, evidence is gathered and analyzed and appropriate actions are taken. As a cacher I see this as part of my role. Like using appropriate tools such as email messages to NA to get issues addressed- each case is different.

 

Okay fair enough we agree to disagree. Who should I send the NA email to on that cache you own on a guardrail?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Treknschmidt

[+AneMae]

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Volunteer reviewers do have a role to play in some cases of safety issues- what role and what level is something GS needs to set out. But yes they do indeed have a role and should be trained for these things. It is simply not enough to turn a blind eye and say we are not responsible. They need to be accountable.

If it is unsafe- I personally will not look away, I will deal with it as I see fit.

No assumptions have been made, evidence is gathered and analyzed and appropriate actions are taken. As a cacher I see this as part of my role. Like using appropriate tools such as email messages to NA to get issues addressed- each case is different.

 

Okay fair enough we agree to disagree. Who should I send the NA email to on that cache you own on a guardrail?

Your call- I would suggest you send me a personal message with your concerns. We will see what we can work out. If that is not to your satisfaction you have other avenues to go. But like I said your call- do what you feel is best.

[+SwineFlew]

Stuff like this doesn't help our case.

 

http://augustafreepress.com/2012/08/13/vdot-memorial-closed-temporarily-due-to-geocache/

That will do it. Just because a place is begging a cache doesnt make its the best place for a cache. It thats a virtual cache, this problem will never happen.

[+Treknschmidt]

 

Your call- I would suggest you send me a personal message with your concerns. We will see what we can work out. If that is not to your satisfaction you have other avenues to go. But like I said your call- do what you feel is best.

 

That's okay I'm not stupid enough to get sucked into that ploy. I am not out to police your caches was just suggesting that maybe the kettle shouldn't call the pot black.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Okay maybe I will get myself in trouble for speaking out but really it needs to be said. You are very quick to point fingers and play the blame game. The Ontario reviewers (all 5 of them) are VOLUNTEERS they do not get paid, they hold regular jobs and do what they do for the betterment of the game. It is not their job to police every single safety issue that you feel should be addressed. If it's unsafe in your eyes don't look for it, its not your place to get the whole world archived although you seem to feel it is. You don't need to look out for my safety, I can do that myself. Secondly why do you always "assume" it was placed on private property without permission? You placed a cache in a Conservation Area and made no mention of it in your description, that doesn't mean I "assume" its on private property it means I "assume" you have proper permission. Why? Because I trust that most people abide by the rules. Apparently I am naive!!

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Volunteer reviewers do have a role to play in some cases of safety issues- what role and what level is something GS needs to set out.

 

Do you have any concrete suggestions for how a reviewer might enforce safety issues. When a reviewer considers a cache submission, unless the description includes information regarding specifically how it is hidden, The reviewer can't tell the difference between a cache hidden under a pile rocks at the edge of a parking lot and a cache hidden among the exposed wires in a light post. Reviewers don't go out and examine the location where a cache is hidden prior to publication. If reviewers were asked to consider safety before publishing a cache not only would they be making a subjective determination regarding safety, they'd almost always be making an uninformed decision as well.

 

Secondly, who will arbitrate the inevitable, and probably frequent disputes between those that submit caches for review, reviewers, and those that discover published. You're never going to get agreement on what is safe and what isn't.

 

If reviewers were required to consider safety issue when determining whether a cache should be published or whether an existing cache should be archived I would predict the following:

 

More than a few *volunteer* reviewers would strongly consider becoming ex-reviewers, and would have to be replaced with people with no experience reviewing caches.

 

Groundspeak would have to hire an army of arbitrators to resolve all the disputes between cachers and reviewers regarding safety. Of course, hiring many new people would mostly likely result in a substantial increase in premium membership fees.

 

The increased cost would be absorbed (excluding those that decide it's just too much to pay to retain premium membership) cachers that never publish cache that would be considered unsafe by anybodies definitation, as well has the majority of cachers that can demonstrate enough common sense to refrain from attempt a cache that's clearly beyond ones comfort zone.

 

But yes they do indeed have a role and should be trained for these things. It is simply not enough to turn a blind eye and say we are not responsible. They need to be accountable.

If it is unsafe- I personally will not look away, I will deal with it as I see fit.

No assumptions have been made, evidence is gathered and analyzed and appropriate actions are taken. As a cacher I see this as part of my role. Like using appropriate tools such as email messages to NA to get issues addressed- each case is different.

[+AneMae]

I never said it would be easy- In fact it would be hugely complicated and costly. However it comes down to covering your "donkey" from liability.

 

Think what a lawsuit would cost and the carnage it could create for Geo-cachers. If I was GS I would take a pro-active approach, whatever that is?

 

I am simply pointing out potential liabilities, I don't have the solutions.

One thing however is that other cachers can take action and speak up when they need too, many do not.

CO's can use their heads (and the GS tools of attributes, descriptions etc...) to point out or mitigate risks associated to a cache. In many cases things just need to be thought out and considered more- critical thinking is what I call it.

 

Example: My guardrail cache (mentioned earlier) is on a road that gets less than 10 cars on it a day. The speed limit is about 30km/h and there is plenty of space for cachers to pull over and search off the road.

A few clicks away there is a similar cache- but it is on a blind corner of a highway that see's 1000's of vehicles/day and the speed limit is 80km/h. There is no space to pull over here.

 

Big difference there. I thought out my cache placement well in advance ( I had the cache ready 4 months before I put it out). The other CO just put his cache out, clearly without any thought for anyones well being.

[AZcachemeister]

Let me re-iterate:

 

Nothing can or will be done about this until the various states pass their various laws.

 

Once the laws are in place, then the reviewers will have a reason to deny publication of caches on guardrails if they suspect one is, or a reason to archive if one is reported to be in violation.

 

One would have to wonder why the VDOT should (apparently) over-react and ban caches at rest stops where people are supposed to be wandering around aimlessly.

[+AneMae]

Let me re-iterate:

 

Nothing can or will be done about this until the various states pass their various laws.

 

Once the laws are in place, then the reviewers will have a reason to deny publication of caches on guardrails if they suspect one is, or a reason to archive if one is reported to be in violation.

 

One would have to wonder why the VDOT should (apparently) over-react and ban caches at rest stops where people are supposed to be wandering around aimlessly.

 

As far as the VDOT situation, what is GS doing about it? Have they reached out to address concerns, or are they just ignoring it all together?

Anybody know?

[+J the Goat]

Okay maybe I will get myself in trouble for speaking out but really it needs to be said. You are very quick to point fingers and play the blame game. The Ontario reviewers (all 5 of them) are VOLUNTEERS they do not get paid, they hold regular jobs and do what they do for the betterment of the game. It is not their job to police every single safety issue that you feel should be addressed. If it's unsafe in your eyes don't look for it, its not your place to get the whole world archived although you seem to feel it is. You don't need to look out for my safety, I can do that myself. Secondly why do you always "assume" it was placed on private property without permission? You placed a cache in a Conservation Area and made no mention of it in your description, that doesn't mean I "assume" its on private property it means I "assume" you have proper permission. Why? Because I trust that most people abide by the rules. Apparently I am naive!!

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Volunteer reviewers do have a role to play in some cases of safety issues- what role and what level is something GS needs to set out. But yes they do indeed have a role and should be trained for these things. It is simply not enough to turn a blind eye and say we are not responsible. They need to be accountable.

If it is unsafe- I personally will not look away, I will deal with it as I see fit.

No assumptions have been made, evidence is gathered and analyzed and appropriate actions are taken. As a cacher I see this as part of my role. Like using appropriate tools such as email messages to NA to get issues addressed- each case is different.

 

So I ask directly, since you didn't address my suggestion in my previous post, why don't you post NA logs on every cache everywhere? Every cache has an element of danger. Some more than others, some of different types, but all are dangerous. Since you've taken it upon yourself to second guess reviewers, CO's, and GS, where is your blanket NA log?

[Keystone]

Volunteer reviewers do have a role to play in some cases of safety issues- what role and what level is something GS needs to set out. But yes they do indeed have a role and should be trained for these things. It is simply not enough to turn a blind eye and say we are not responsible. They need to be accountable.

The day when Groundspeak policy is changed as you've described will be my last day as a volunteer cache reviewer.

 

But, I'll humor you and pretend that I stayed on board as a safety-conscious cache reviewer.

 

More geocachers have died driving to caches than from any other cause. So, I'd start by archiving all caches easily reached by car.

 

Other geocachers have died while on long hikes in the woods to find caches. So, next I'd archive all the hiking caches.

 

If there are any lamp post caches left after that, let me know when someone dies or is injured while seeking them and I'll archive those, too. But for now, they're a distant concern after car hazards and hiking hazards.

[+AneMae]

Volunteer reviewers do have a role to play in some cases of safety issues- what role and what level is something GS needs to set out. But yes they do indeed have a role and should be trained for these things. It is simply not enough to turn a blind eye and say we are not responsible. They need to be accountable.

The day when Groundspeak policy is changed as you've described will be my last day as a volunteer cache reviewer.

 

But, I'll humor you and pretend that I stayed on board as a safety-conscious cache reviewer.

 

More geocachers have died driving to caches than from any other cause. So, I'd start by archiving all caches easily reached by car.

 

Other geocachers have died while on long hikes in the woods to find caches. So, next I'd archive all the hiking caches.

 

If there are any lamp post caches left after that, let me know when someone dies or is injured while seeking them and I'll archive those, too. But for now, they're a distant concern after car hazards and hiking hazards.

 

Like I have said earlier, it is about "Critical Thinking"- we seem to be in an age where that is a thing of the past.

 

Je Suis finis!

[+JL_HSTRE]

Stuff like this doesn't help our case.

 

http://augustafreepress.com/2012/08/13/vdot-memorial-closed-temporarily-due-to-geocache/

 

http://coord.info/GC25RNF

 

Ironically, it wasn't even the geocache that did it. The only physical cache there was a micro; there was a multi that started there, but it was a virtual stage. According to the cache logs, it looks like it was actually a letterbox that caused the bomb scare.

 

I wonder if the letterboxing community is developing a hatred of geocaching for "ruining" their hobby by proxy?

[+Glenn]

A needs-archived on a clearly unsafe cache doesn't work up here:

 

 

Apparently the reviewers are not the safety police

There are plenty of caches that can be considered dangerous. Like caches that require rock climbing, boating, spelunking, etc. But with the proper gear and possibly a little training the dangers can be mitigated. The big issue I see is when a cache in a dangerous area isn't rated appropriately. If you place a LPC, or any cache, where there is the potential of coming in to contact with live wires it needs to have 5 star terrain rating. Because you need specialized equipment like rubber insulating gloves to protect you from the shock potential.