Jump to content

Dangerous and illegal caches


4wheelin_fool
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I am admittedly behind in my brushing up on Groundspeak policy..... The issue TO ME is NOT policy... It's culture.

 

There is a don't ask don't tell culture here when it comes to caches that get published that do not meet guidelines. There's mayyyybe 1 or 2 cachers in every community that will report problems with caches that do not meet guidelines. The comments that get made about these folks are for the most part unflattering. On the flipside of that you have folks that abuse the reporting system or just plain don't get how to use it properly, but they all get lumped together in the negative pile.

 

Change needs to start with US, but it needs to be supported by Groundspeak. Personal geocaching safety awareness and reporting guideline violations needs to be stressed in Groundspeak's various media and event hosts need to be encouraged (not required) to bring it up as a topic of discussion for at least 5 minutes at every event.

 

There is an element of safety/security risk that cachers have when we are engaged in our activity that is greater than most muggles. Other sports have adopted a culture of safety mindset out of necessity where the risk is very great like shooting sports, sky diving, and scuba diving.

 

Most folks just don't see the need in geocaching which is why I have been mostly quiet on this issue... Hey Snoog, this ain't shootin' or scuba.... But ask Willimax's family, in Dresden, and they will tell you that dead is dead. :mellow:

 

Nearly all of the injuries and the geocaching deaths I have looked into are basically the fault of the person who was injured or who died and the reasons are always the same: Rushing, fatigue, frustration, prior medical condition, and mainly complacency which contributes to the following critical errors: Eyes not on task, mind not on task, placing one's self in the line of fire (I.E. traffic, too close to a dropoff, etc.), and finally inattention to balance, traction, or grip.

 

Personal safety/security would seem like common sense, but it isn't. It needs to be taught and reinforced by a culture. And a culture is driven by its leaders. As the worlds largest facilitator of Geocaching, Groundspeak does have a duty to care whether they see it or not. Their disclaimers are not care. Their guidlines are not care. Care comes from showing a concern for the people who use their listing service and offering information/awareness and supporting programs to make geocaching a safer activity for everyone through continuous improvement.

 

Honestly, how long would you last at a gun range without eye and ear protection before someone confronted you? When is the last time you headed into the woods to cache and you remembered or someone told you to put on your safety glasses? Now, how many of you have been poked in the eye by a branch while caching? Just sayin'....

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
It all started out (according to what I read in the forums here) some where in Northern Virginia between two geocachers that did not get along and one had to have his way, and that one had friends high up on the Totom Pole and got things messed up for all of us here in the Commonwealth.

Let us all give thanx that this spat occurred, and pray that it expands to the rest of the country. B)

 

HEY! I just hid the best guardrail cache EVER. :anibad:

 

I actually just bought one of those while I was in Germany (red & silver). It's sitting on my desk in my office!

 

I heard the incident referenced was found to be a case of insurance fraud.

Link to comment
It all started out (according to what I read in the forums here) some where in Northern Virginia between two geocachers that did not get along and one had to have his way, and that one had friends high up on the Totom Pole and got things messed up for all of us here in the Commonwealth.

Let us all give thanx that this spat occurred, and pray that it expands to the rest of the country. B)

 

HEY! I just hid the best guardrail cache EVER. :anibad:

 

I actually just bought one of those while I was in Germany (red & silver). It's sitting on my desk in my office!

 

I heard the incident referenced was found to be a case of insurance fraud.

 

Yes, but did you notice that I addressed how to safely get this cache?

Link to comment

I am admittedly behind in my brushing up on Groundspeak policy..... The issue TO ME is NOT policy... It's culture.

 

There is a don't ask don't tell culture here when it comes to caches that get published that do not meet guidelines. There's mayyyybe 1 or 2 cachers in every community that will report problems with caches that do not meet guidelines. The comments that get made about these folks are for the most part unflattering. On the flipside of that you have folks that abuse the reporting system or just plain don't get how to use it properly, but they all get lumped together in the negative pile.

 

Change needs to start with US, but it needs to be supported by Groundspeak. Personal geocaching safety awareness and reporting guideline violations needs to be stressed in Groundspeak's various media and event hosts need to be encouraged (not required) to bring it up as a topic of discussion for at least 5 minutes at every event.

 

There is an element of safety/security risk that cachers have when we are engaged in our activity that is greater than most muggles. Other sports have adopted a culture of safety mindset out of necessity where the risk is very great like shooting sports, sky diving, and scuba diving.

 

Most folks just don't see the need in geocaching which is why I have been mostly quiet on this issue... Hey Snoog, this ain't shootin' or scuba.... But ask Willimax's family, in Dresden, and they will tell you that dead is dead. :mellow:

 

Nearly all of the injuries and the geocaching deaths I have looked into are basically the fault of the person who was injured or who died and the reasons are always the same: Rushing, fatigue, frustration, prior medical condition, and mainly complacency which contributes to the following critical errors: Eyes not on task, mind not on task, placing one's self in the line of fire (I.E. traffic, too close to a dropoff, etc.), and finally inattention to balance, traction, or grip.

 

Personal safety/security would seem like common sense, but it isn't. It needs to be taught and reinforced by a culture. And a culture is driven by its leaders. As the worlds largest facilitator of Geocaching, Groundspeak does have a duty to care whether they see it or not. Their disclaimers are not care. Their guidlines are not care. Care comes from showing a concern for the people who use their listing service and offering information/awareness and supporting programs to make geocaching a safer activity for everyone through continuous improvement.

 

Honestly, how long would you last at a gun range without eye and ear protection before someone confronted you? When is the last time you headed into the woods to cache and you remembered or someone told you to put on your safety glasses? Now, how many of you have been poked in the eye by a branch while caching? Just sayin'....

 

I fear that as long as Groundspeak dodges liability, they will never "care." And it is just a matter of time before some kid gets killed on a highway trying to find a guardrail cache, or someone climbs a tree on state property and breaks their neck - and then said state tries ot figure out a way to pin it on Groundspeak - they can't dodge the posibility of some sort of liability forever.

 

I am not saying "take these kinds of caches away" by any means. But they cannot keep ignoring the risks involved with caching and saying nothing about it other then "we are just a listing service" and pin it on the heads of non-paid volunteers to monitor caches.

Link to comment
It all started out (according to what I read in the forums here) some where in Northern Virginia between two geocachers that did not get along and one had to have his way, and that one had friends high up on the Totom Pole and got things messed up for all of us here in the Commonwealth.

Let us all give thanx that this spat occurred, and pray that it expands to the rest of the country. B)

 

HEY! I just hid the best guardrail cache EVER. :anibad:

 

Mine were part of the Daniel Boone Wilderness Trail series and were located in pull-overs along the highway, safty should not have been a concern if you can park a big rig and trailer in the space. Now I get lot's of complaints about Cudzue in the summer, but I moved the geocaches. I put alot of work into that series and posted links to the DBWT site, and my listings are historically accurate. I agree with our moderator Briansnat, if the only reason I brought you to a place was to find a geocache, then I should have found a better spot. I only had a few guardrail hides, but when I found out about the changes I moved them, many users just let their listing be archived and some are still in place.

I agree with Clan Riffster about Guardrail and highway sign hides, stopping in the middle of the road or along the highway to find a geocache can be dangerous. There is a PT near me on a 4 lane that keeps showing up in my PQ's that I won't attempt. There is a bike route along the highway, and I ride a bike, just not along a 4 lane abd finding a film canister hanging on a road sign is not geocaching to me. I have offered to pay $10 extra on my PM is Groundspeak will add a ignore users listings feature. I need to place them on my ignore list because they do take up about 100 spaces on my local PQ's. Hopefully someone that loves PT's will public book mark them soon, I think I could work with that. :D

Link to comment

I am admittedly behind in my brushing up on Groundspeak policy..... The issue TO ME is NOT policy... It's culture.

 

There is a don't ask don't tell culture here when it comes to caches that get published that do not meet guidelines. There's mayyyybe 1 or 2 cachers in every community that will report problems with caches that do not meet guidelines. The comments that get made about these folks are for the most part unflattering. On the flipside of that you have folks that abuse the reporting system or just plain don't get how to use it properly, but they all get lumped together in the negative pile.

 

Change needs to start with US, but it needs to be supported by Groundspeak. Personal geocaching safety awareness and reporting guideline violations needs to be stressed in Groundspeak's various media and event hosts need to be encouraged (not required) to bring it up as a topic of discussion for at least 5 minutes at every event.

 

There is an element of safety/security risk that cachers have when we are engaged in our activity that is greater than most muggles. Other sports have adopted a culture of safety mindset out of necessity where the risk is very great like shooting sports, sky diving, and scuba diving.

 

Most folks just don't see the need in geocaching which is why I have been mostly quiet on this issue... Hey Snoog, this ain't shootin' or scuba.... But ask Willimax's family, in Dresden, and they will tell you that dead is dead. :mellow:

 

Nearly all of the injuries and the geocaching deaths I have looked into are basically the fault of the person who was injured or who died and the reasons are always the same: Rushing, fatigue, frustration, prior medical condition, and mainly complacency which contributes to the following critical errors: Eyes not on task, mind not on task, placing one's self in the line of fire (I.E. traffic, too close to a dropoff, etc.), and finally inattention to balance, traction, or grip.

 

Personal safety/security would seem like common sense, but it isn't. It needs to be taught and reinforced by a culture. And a culture is driven by its leaders. As the worlds largest facilitator of Geocaching, Groundspeak does have a duty to care whether they see it or not. Their disclaimers are not care. Their guidlines are not care. Care comes from showing a concern for the people who use their listing service and offering information/awareness and supporting programs to make geocaching a safer activity for everyone through continuous improvement.

 

Honestly, how long would you last at a gun range without eye and ear protection before someone confronted you? When is the last time you headed into the woods to cache and you remembered or someone told you to put on your safety glasses? Now, how many of you have been poked in the eye by a branch while caching? Just sayin'....

 

I fear that as long as Groundspeak dodges liability, they will never "care." And it is just a matter of time before some kid gets killed on a highway trying to find a guardrail cache, or someone climbs a tree on state property and breaks their neck - and then said state tries ot figure out a way to pin it on Groundspeak - they can't dodge the posibility of some sort of liability forever.

 

I am not saying "take these kinds of caches away" by any means. But they cannot keep ignoring the risks involved with caching and saying nothing about it other then "we are just a listing service" and pin it on the heads of non-paid volunteers to monitor caches.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I know Duty of Care has its basis in English common law and has been practically applied in the USA. OSHA positively dwells on it, but this is not a matter for them.

 

duty of care n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.

 

I put "person" in italics because it illustrate the point that the duty to care starts with us, but it can also and has been interpreted as an entity like Groundspeak.

 

If the exact same perfect storm situation that happened in Germany were to happen here in the USA, where the deceased, the community, the review/reporting process, and the CO all failed in some way, you can bet the lawsuits would fly and disclaimer or not some of it would stick because of Duty of Care. The deepest pockets would get hit first and folks, that's bad for all of us because money that would be better spent on developement of this site would be getting sucked up by lawyers and judgements.

 

If we all get onboard, then maybe Groundspeak would respond in kind.

 

Doesn't it look better to say "Despite our various disclaimers and legal protections as a listing service, Groundspeak's greatest assets are its customers, volunteers, and employees. In that respect we have tried to raise personal safety/security awareness and have supported such safety initiatives as X-example, y-example, z-example, etc." Rather than "Here's our disclaimer and guidelines. We're covered."

 

I personally believe that as the largest facilitator of geocaching worldwide and as a reasonable person/entity, the caring approach to arse covering is going to be cheaper in the long term and put a much more positive spin when something does happen.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
It all started out (according to what I read in the forums here) some where in Northern Virginia between two geocachers that did not get along and one had to have his way, and that one had friends high up on the Totom Pole and got things messed up for all of us here in the Commonwealth.

Let us all give thanx that this spat occurred, and pray that it expands to the rest of the country. B)

 

HEY! I just hid the best guardrail cache EVER. :anibad:

Blasphemer! :P

Link to comment

If we all get onboard, then maybe Groundspeak would respond in kind.

I've oft wondered why they haven't. We know that Groundspeak is a business, and it exists to generate income. This has led me to speculate on why a particular business would not be leading the way, promoting safety concerns. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV, but as a lifetime member of the law enforcement community, I have been involved in a lot of civil actions, as a witness for one side or the other. I have observed some really strange arguments made by whichever side had their hand out, explaining why the estate of someone who made the Darwin Award list should get heaps of cash.

 

My best guess, (with no claims toward accuracy), is that some lawyer has told Groundspeak that promoting safety could be twisted into their taking some minor degree of responsibility for any particular listing. As bizarre as that sounds, it pales in comparison to some of the legal arguments I've had to sit through.

Link to comment

If we all get onboard, then maybe Groundspeak would respond in kind.

I've oft wondered why they haven't. We know that Groundspeak is a business, and it exists to generate income. This has led me to speculate on why a particular business would not be leading the way, promoting safety concerns. I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV, but as a lifetime member of the law enforcement community, I have been involved in a lot of civil actions, as a witness for one side or the other. I have observed some really strange arguments made by whichever side had their hand out, explaining why the estate of someone who made the Darwin Award list should get heaps of cash.

 

My best guess, (with no claims toward accuracy), is that some lawyer has told Groundspeak that promoting safety could be twisted into their taking some minor degree of responsibility for any particular listing. As bizarre as that sounds, it pales in comparison to some of the legal arguments I've had to sit through.

 

You are probably right. But Groundspeak needs to realize, there is always a better laywer out there. And no matter how many armchair lawyers sit here or tow-the-line worshippers of the great ivory tower and the demigod lackeys who sit in it in Seatlle, it is just a matter of time before a lawsuit comes up, whether it is over a safety thing or even just a state wanting some kickback over caches placed on its land...if you don't think a politician in virginia or any other state is sitting there now wondering "how can we levy a tax or fee on this geocachig thing" or some lawyer waiting on jump all over a potential lawsuit or even some well meaning cacher who gets hurt on a tree climb and then wants to sue, then people will be fooling themselves. Playing ignorant and "we are just a listing service" won't last forever as long as the bloodsucking lawyers are around. :-)

Link to comment

 

See, that Bing translator works. Leitplanken = Guardrail. :P

 

The listing was not locked when I looked a day or two after the archival. If you consider this Geocaching going mainstream, then it's always been mainstream. I can't stress enough, we just would NEVER rappell of an observation tower in North America in the name of Geocaching. You know what that is? It's illegal stunting. It's like going over Niagara Falls (which I happen to live 10 miles from) in a barrell. If you survive, you're going to be arrested at the bottom, spend time in jail, and receive a hefty fine. Geocaching should not be associated with "illegal stunting". :)

 

It´s because people wasted the money on the climbing set, so they could get those few tree climbing caches, and then had no use for it. Now they want to mainstream climbing caches, regardless of if one should be there or not.

 

They should head to Hessen. There are (or were, in 2009) a TON of climbing caches in and around our area.

Link to comment

My best guess, (with no claims toward accuracy), is that some lawyer has told Groundspeak that promoting safety could be twisted into their taking some minor degree of responsibility for any particular listing. As bizarre as that sounds, it pales in comparison to some of the legal arguments I've had to sit through.

 

I had completed the first 2 of 3 accident investigation courses when Willimax died in Dresden last year. During the third class I showed my instructor the highlights of the Willimax thread and shared my analysis of the facts available and informed him about what I thought needed to happen to improve the culture. I also told him that I was informed that pretty much wasn't gonna happen. Thus my abrupt exit from the thread.

 

His response was remarkably close to what you wrote. He also pointed it out as a potentially costly mistake for a big company and possibly a severely crippling mistake for a small one.

 

I really like Groundspeak. I hope it never comes to that.

 

I would be interested to hear from one of our geocaching lawyers about why GS would choose duck and cover over active care.

Link to comment
It all started out (according to what I read in the forums here) some where in Northern Virginia between two geocachers that did not get along and one had to have his way, and that one had friends high up on the Totom Pole and got things messed up for all of us here in the Commonwealth.

Let us all give thanx that this spat occurred, and pray that it expands to the rest of the country. B)

 

HEY! I just hid the best guardrail cache EVER. :anibad:

 

Would that be like the cleanest dumpster hide?

Link to comment
It all started out (according to what I read in the forums here) some where in Northern Virginia between two geocachers that did not get along and one had to have his way, and that one had friends high up on the Totom Pole and got things messed up for all of us here in the Commonwealth.

Let us all give thanx that this spat occurred, and pray that it expands to the rest of the country. B)

 

HEY! I just hid the best guardrail cache EVER. :anibad:

 

Would that be like the cleanest dumpster hide?

 

I dunno. Seeing the spot where a 2 million dollar car took a swim in salt water has a special appeal for some.

Link to comment

 

My best guess, (with no claims toward accuracy), is that some lawyer has told Groundspeak that promoting safety could be twisted into their taking some minor degree of responsibility for any particular listing. As bizarre as that sounds, it pales in comparison to some of the legal arguments I've had to sit through.

 

It's not so bizarre. A long time ago when I worked for a well known high tech company, there was a general policy not to comment on some of the wild assertions that were made by competitors about it's products. The rationale was that once you stared responding, failing to respond to some assertion could be seen as a tacit agreement that the assertion was true.

Link to comment

I cannot believe this thread! I actually found it since a cache that was on my to do-list was arcived due to it.

 

Why can't people learn to keep their noses where they belong? What drives people to act as police in matters they have nothing to do with? I even see people whining and reporting stuff that is on the other side of an ocean from them in this thread. Pathetic.

Link to comment

I cannot believe this thread! I actually found it since a cache that was on my to do-list was arcived due to it.

 

Why can't people learn to keep their noses where they belong? What drives people to act as police in matters they have nothing to do with? I even see people whining and reporting stuff that is on the other side of an ocean from them in this thread. Pathetic.

 

Was it archived due to legal issues (such as placement on private property without permission) or it being "unsafe"?

 

As far as "policing", geocaching should be a self policing activity. If you see a cache that is illegally placed or against the guidelines, it should be reported. This prevents issues if a non-cacher (sych as the property owner) finds out and reports it to the real police. (Though I defintiely wouldn't report on a cache that I had not visiited).

Link to comment

 

Was it archived due to legal issues (such as placement on private property without permission) or it being "unsafe"?

 

As far as "policing", geocaching should be a self policing activity. If you see a cache that is illegally placed or against the guidelines, it should be reported. This prevents issues if a non-cacher (sych as the property owner) finds out and reports it to the real police. (Though I defintiely wouldn't report on a cache that I had not visiited).

 

I still think people should mind their own business. The only time I would report a cache is it was really dangerously placed without it being indicated in the description and/or with attributes (Actually I would probably not even report it in that case. I would probably send a pm to the owner instead).

 

Also, the guidelines are exactly that - guidelines. In some cases they are downright silly, especially since they tend to be written from a US perspective and generally disregard differences in legislation and culture in other countries.

 

Regardless of which however, just as I do not keep running to the police telling them you crossed the street during red or that you drove 10km/h too fast with your car I do not e-mail Groundspeak (or draw attention to it in the forums) as soon as I spot a cache that maybe isn't 100% according to the guidelines.

 

Caching is moving too much in the direction of 1,5/1,5 powertrails only as it is already. Let's not make it even more difficult to create something that is actually fun.

Link to comment

Caches which have the combination of both illegal and dangerous qualities put the others at risk. When discovered by authorities, they are unlikely to sign up with an e-mail account and check all of the listings to see if there are others which are illegal. Rather, they will enact a blanket ban on all caches in the area. If you want to hide an illegal cache, why put the others at risk by listing it on a site where the majority have legal access? A few slip through the cracks, then local cachers develop an entitlement attitude, and they multiply. Most buried caches as well as ones using nails pose no concern to most land managers, but there is a blanket ban on all of them because of the ones that do cause problems. The irony in dangerous caches is that it is stressed to "find them at your own risk", yet the ones that are also illegal are posted at the risk of getting others archived.

 

Caching is moving too much in the direction of 1,5/1,5 powertrails only as it is already. Let's not make it even more difficult to create something that is actually fun.

 

Perhaps you could change your hundreds of powertrail finds to notes to protest that a bit better. :P

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Caches which have the combination of both illegal and dangerous qualities put the others at risk. When discovered by authorities, they are unlikely to sign up with an e-mail account and check all of the listings to see if there are others which are illegal. Rather, they will enact a blanket ban on all caches in the area. If you want to hide an illegal cache, why put the others at risk by listing it on a site where the majority have legal access? A few slip through the cracks, then local cachers develop an entitlement attitude, and they multiply. Most buried caches as well as ones using nails pose no concern to most land managers, but there is a blanket ban on all of them because of the ones that do cause problems. The irony in dangerous caches is that it is stressed to "find them at your own risk", yet the ones that are also illegal are posted at the risk of getting others archived.

 

Well put. Thnaks for saving me from writing a long reply.

Link to comment

Caches which have the combination of both illegal and dangerous qualities put the others at risk. When discovered by authorities, they are unlikely to sign up with an e-mail account and check all of the listings to see if there are others which are illegal. Rather, they will enact a blanket ban on all caches in the area. If you want to hide an illegal cache, why put the others at risk by listing it on a site where the majority have legal access? A few slip through the cracks, then local cachers develop an entitlement attitude, and they multiply. Most buried caches as well as ones using nails pose no concern to most land managers, but there is a blanket ban on all of them because of the ones that do cause problems. The irony in dangerous caches is that it is stressed to "find them at your own risk", yet the ones that are also illegal are posted at the risk of getting others archived.

 

Perhaps you could change your hundreds of powertrail finds to notes to protest that a bit better. :P

 

Wow, big surprised that you are based in the US...

 

First of all, any cache is potentially dangerous. Hence there is even an attribute you can use if you consider it dangerous. Secondly the risk of hurting yourself is considerably bigger in an cache you log by foot rather than one where you are actually tied in with a rope and harness. I have injured myself once in about 7300 caches, whereof 169 were T5. That cache was T1,5...

 

Secondly, I doubt even in the US the authorities COULD enforce a ban against geocaching. Over here they certainly couldn't. If some authority or landowner finds a cache they do not like they will contact Groundspeak and request it removed, that's all. This happens regularly. And again - not the entire world is the US. There are countries where access to nature is a lot more free than in your country. Yet we are all forced to live by guidelines written according to US circumstances.

 

Don't get me wrong - if I find a cache that is an example of seriously poor judgement (let's say it was placed on an active railway bridge) I would act too. But people should ask themselves "Does this cache really impose a problem?" Use some common sense. Don't be so nit-picky. The cache that pointed my interest to this thread did absolutely no harm at all. Yet some guy from the other side of the Atlantic had to stick his nose in it, most likely the kind of person who gets a kick out of reporting people for various issues that are not his business in his local community too.

 

As for logging powertrail caches I don't mind logging now and then (though actually it was fund the first couple of times, I am growing increasingly bored with them the more they get). One of the things I like with geocaching is that you can enjoy it in so many ways. One weekend you go for numbers, the next för one single T5 cache, or you travel to the other side of the world to log one specific really old cache etc. The current trend however is that this will be increasingly difficult since we are moving in a direction with more and more mainstream and more and more restrictions (I could give you a long list of real examples of this stupidity) to creative caches of all kinds. No kind of cache is fun the day all other caches are of the exact same kind.

Link to comment

you have to play by the rules. Don't like it don't play simple as that motorcycledude. You don't like people reporting the caches cause they don't meet the guidelines then place ones that meet the guidelines or do the geocaching world a favor and don't hide any.

Edited by Lexmarks567
Link to comment

I doubt even in the US the authorities COULD enforce a ban against geocaching. Over here they certainly couldn't.

Guess again. The volunteer cache reviewers have been dealing with land manager bans for more than ten years. It works like this:

 

1. Land manager tells a geocacher or Groundspeak, "absolutely no caches on any of our properties."

2. Volunteer cache reviewer is informed of the land manager's policy.

3. Someone submits a new cache on one of these properties.

4. Reviewer says "sorry, no, this land manager doesn't permit caches."

 

Whether you're in Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen, that's the way it works. The caches that violate a land manager ban are not published. New bans are added every year, often due to perceived abuses of the natural resources by geocachers.

Link to comment

you have to play by the rules. Don't like it don't play simple as that motorcycledude. You don't like people reporting the caches cause they don't meet the guidelines then place ones that meet the guidelines or do the geocaching world a favor and don't hide any.

 

Yeah, you are right. Everything will be a lot better if we instead of spending our time actually geocaching instead spend it looking for every little fault we can in other people's geocaches and then report them. We should especially do so with caches on the other side of the world where we have not even set foot *facepalm*

Link to comment

I doubt even in the US the authorities COULD enforce a ban against geocaching. Over here they certainly couldn't.

Guess again. The volunteer cache reviewers have been dealing with land manager bans for more than ten years. It works like this:

 

1. Land manager tells a geocacher or Groundspeak, "absolutely no caches on any of our properties."

2. Volunteer cache reviewer is informed of the land manager's policy.

3. Someone submits a new cache on one of these properties.

4. Reviewer says "sorry, no, this land manager doesn't permit caches."

 

Whether you're in Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen, that's the way it works. The caches that violate a land manager ban are not published. New bans are added every year, often due to perceived abuses of the natural resources by geocachers.

 

Wasn't that more or less exactly what I wrote? A land manager does not like a cache and reports it and then it will be archived? But they can hardly ban caches throughout Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen.

 

Furthermore - and actualy it doesn't work the same wherever you are. Over here for instance, yes, a land manager can do that for a national park, a building etc. but not for any random forest as long as the cache is not in the direct vicinity of a home.

 

But this is more or less beside my point. I don't think people should actively try to get "illegal" caches published. I just wish for a bit of common sense if a cacher finds something that is maybe slightly questionable. If it doesn't really do any damage then don't be an *** and report it just because you can or just because you get a kick out of it.

Link to comment

I doubt even in the US the authorities COULD enforce a ban against geocaching. Over here they certainly couldn't.

Guess again. The volunteer cache reviewers have been dealing with land manager bans for more than ten years. It works like this:

 

1. Land manager tells a geocacher or Groundspeak, "absolutely no caches on any of our properties."

2. Volunteer cache reviewer is informed of the land manager's policy.

3. Someone submits a new cache on one of these properties.

4. Reviewer says "sorry, no, this land manager doesn't permit caches."

 

Whether you're in Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen, that's the way it works. The caches that violate a land manager ban are not published. New bans are added every year, often due to perceived abuses of the natural resources by geocachers.

 

Wasn't that more or less exactly what I wrote? A land manager does not like a cache and reports it and then it will be archived? But they can hardly ban caches throughout Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen.

 

Furthermore - and actualy it doesn't work the same wherever you are. Over here for instance, yes, a land manager can do that for a national park, a building etc. but not for any random forest as long as the cache is not in the direct vicinity of a home.

 

 

I don't see how that is any different than in the U.S. Throughout the U.S. there is a lot of forest land which does not have a ban from the land manager, and geocachers can place caches there without explicit permission.

 

 

But this is more or less beside my point. I don't think people should actively try to get "illegal" caches published. I just wish for a bit of common sense if a cacher finds something that is maybe slightly questionable. If it doesn't really do any damage then don't be an *** and report it just because you can or just because you get a kick out of it.

 

That's probably a more accurate description of how things *are* handled. There are probably far more caches that are clear violations of the guidelines that *should* be reported, but aren't, than there are caches which slightly questionable that get a NA log. Sometimes, however, it seems that "it doesn't really do any damage" gets translated into "as long as I had fun and my smiley count goes up" it's not causing any harm.

Link to comment

if there is a such BAN list, with areas listed where no caches are alowed

LETS see this list please ?

I assume it is sorted by contry, city, area and full cordinates and such ?

come on, show us...

 

ok there is no list, right ?

 

I know my reviewer keeps a list for the areas off limits in Rhode Island (Audubon Properties and Dutch Island are the current "banned" properties).

Link to comment

if there is a such BAN list, with areas listed where no caches are alowed

LETS see this list please ?

I assume it is sorted by contry, city, area and full cordinates and such ?

come on, show us...

 

ok there is no list, right ?

 

If there is an off limits area where you cache, I suspect the info can be found on the reviewer's profile page. And if there is a regional or national organization the info is probably there. But I doubt there is or will ever be one all encompassing international list if that's what you are demanding to see.

Link to comment

 

Furthermore - and actualy it doesn't work the same wherever you are. Over here for instance, yes, a land manager can do that for a national park, a building etc. but not for any random forest as long as the cache is not in the direct vicinity of a home.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

According to the owner, it did indeed pass to the NSG "rules". The land manager/property owner wasn´t thrilled when he found it was there, and sent a wonderful letter to the cache owner, viewable in his post before archiving.

 

That a property owner doesn´t know it´s there when it´s placed, doesn´t mean that it´s tolerated by them.

 

Eventually someone does see that problem cache and says something. I´d rather see a geocacher do it than the police or property managers/owners.

 

But this is more or less beside my point. I don't think people should actively try to get "illegal" caches published. I just wish for a bit of common sense if a cacher finds something that is maybe slightly questionable. If it doesn't really do any damage then don't be an *** and report it just because you can or just because you get a kick out of it.

 

It should be the other way around. The owner should use common sense while placing a cache, and not simply say "I´m putting one here, and don´t care what anyone says about it!" Such cache owners only damage the sport with this lack of "common" sense. It is the job of the finder to bring attention to such issues so that the game can continue normally. Otherwise, we all end up with the same problems as Hessen(sorry hzoi, a bit has changed since you last looked, and is still changing).

Link to comment

if there is a such BAN list, with areas listed where no caches are alowed

LETS see this list please ?

I assume it is sorted by contry, city, area and full cordinates and such ?

come on, show us...

 

ok there is no list, right ?

I don't know if it's complete, but better than nothing:wiki

 

That list seems to be fairly comprehensive. I suppose there is a story behind each ban, and a specific cache which caused an issue, along with a cache owner and several finders who figured there would be no problem.

Link to comment
That a property owner doesn´t know it´s there when it´s placed, doesn´t mean that it´s tolerated by them.

 

Eventually someone does see that problem cache and says something. I´d rather see a geocacher do it than the police or property managers/owners.

 

I see that you are a cache owner yourself. Whom did you ask for permission before putting them out?

Link to comment

 

I see that you are a cache owner yourself. Whom did you ask for permission before putting them out?

 

GC3B427 is sitting on the side of open use property, namely a road, where I am allowed to use a container every day(car), and place several times a month other containers out on(trash/paper barrels).

 

GC3F6WF is sitting just off of the path of an public walkway/bikeway, where the owner allows free movement and recreational use of the property(outside of the farm fields).

 

The free use of the properties is more than enough (guidelinewise) permission. Both caches are placed in a way that an absolute minimal damage would be caused, and nobody is disturbed. Neither is in NSG. Both are LSG. The use of the land is complient with the restrictions of a LSG.

 

Your turn! It should be interessing with all those t3.5+ caches.

Link to comment

GC3B427 is sitting on the side of open use property, namely a road, where I am allowed to use a container every day(car), and place several times a month other containers out on(trash/paper barrels).

 

GC3F6WF is sitting just off of the path of an public walkway/bikeway, where the owner allows free movement and recreational use of the property(outside of the farm fields).

 

The free use of the properties is more than enough (guidelinewise) permission.

/.../

Your turn! It should be interessing with all those t3.5+ caches.

 

So in short, you do not have permission.

 

As for me, in some cases I have permission (it is for instance required by our reviewers in some nature reserves) and in others I don't, but have like you used common sense.

 

The case in Sweden is somewhat special though since we have something called The Law of Common Access, which regulates every person's free access to nature regardless of if it is private property. There are of course restrictions as to what you are allowed to do there (you are not allowed to chop down trees, dump garbage etc.) but in fact just recently the responsible authority stated that they consider geocaching not to be in violation of the rules and that is in fact ok to place a cache, taken that you also take care of it.

Link to comment

 

The case in Sweden is somewhat special though since we have something called The Law of Common Access, which regulates every person's free access to nature regardless of if it is private property.

 

Many places have a similar concept. You use the property as intended, without damaging it, or disturbing others, and they let you have your fun.

 

Problem is, when someone goes outside of one of these open areas, and treats it as they will.

 

I´ll redirect your attention to the cache I mentioned before. Cache was fine, it was ok for a while, then the 12 person group showed up a midnight. The owners picture is a copy of the letter saying geocachers found in these woods will be prosecuted, due to the disturbance.

 

Next one is this one. Stood in a NSG. Rule for NSG: Not off official ways. GC version from reviewers: Can be off of the path, but one foot must remain on it to get it. Cache owner came, and screwed a PETling(sodatube) up under the tower, making a t5 cache. Due to that, this area is now offlimits for caches, as the town found it.

 

People on the forums name it the "Frisbee rule". It is meant as implied permission. You may have no problems with that silly magnet cache under the metal stairs, but that one at the top of some random object is eventually going to stand out, and someone does ask.

Link to comment
But they can hardly ban caches throughout Pennsylvania, Yorkshire or Bremen.

If the lawmakers in Pennsylvania were to ban geocaching, the process would be the same. BillyBobNosePicker would submit his cache for review, and the Reviewer would send BillyBob a note saying, "Sorry. Geocaching is not allowed in Pennsylvania". BillyBob would then have to decide not to own a cache in Pennsylvania, or to submit it to one of those other sites that don't have guidelines.

 

So in short, you do not have permission.

That's not what I read. :unsure:

 

There are at least two level of permission. Implied and explicit.

Groundspeak asks for explicit permission for hides on private property, and for hides on public lands that have an active geocaching policy requiring permits and such. To put that in local perspective, I own several caches in the Little Big Econ State Forest. Their rules require a permit for any cache placed on their property. I have a permit on hand for each of the ones I have hidden there. The same is true for the hides I own on St John's River Water Management District lands. I also own several hides in the Ocala National Forest. They are of the mindset that geocaching is a benign use of their natural resources, and have no interest in implementing an official policy. In that patch of woods, permission is implied. It sounds like the caches you were questioning have implied permission, as opposed to no permission.

Link to comment

What do you make of GC1X28K? Involves scaling an often icy bridge pillar over a lake in Finland. Mentioned it to a colleague who lives in that town (muggle but interested in starting caching) and he says it's not only insanely dangerous, it's also definitely illegal.

 

Read Here first. When you think it fits to that description, you can either:

A) Try with a reviewer local to that area, and hope he speaks the same language.

B ) Try with the state/town offices in that area.

C) Ignore it.

 

I would recommend not attempting to make this a "Call out caches and let other people do the dirty work" thread. That would not end well.

 

(Silly smilies)

Edited by schattentanz
Link to comment

What do you make of GC1X28K? Involves scaling an often icy bridge pillar over a lake in Finland. Mentioned it to a colleague who lives in that town (muggle but interested in starting caching) and he says it's not only insanely dangerous, it's also definitely illegal.

 

Read Here first. When you think it fits to that description, you can either:

A) Try with a reviewer local to that area, and hope he speaks the same language.

B ) Try with the state/town offices in that area.

C) Ignore it.

 

I would recommend not attempting to make this a "Call out caches and let other people do the dirty work" thread. That would not end well.

 

(Silly smilies)

 

C'mon Schatt, SBA it. :laughing:

 

Eh, this one isn't THAT crazy. Definitely another example of Geocaching being a more of a "rogue, underground" game in Europe. This one? Someone might try something like that in North America.

 

The Google maps have dozens of pictures of this pedestrian bridge. Here's a good one. EDIT: I see that's just the aerial view. Pull the little human figure down to any blue rectangle and you'll see the whole gallery of pictures of the bridge.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I wasn't calling for its removal - a bit of at-your-own-risk-but-not-to-other-people danger and subversion is fine by me. I hope it stays! That's why I put "What do you make of..."?

There's a D1/T5 cache in my home city of Oxford - it's under a bridge over the Thames. You can abseil there, "spiderman" (feet on one girder, hands on the next) or of course go by boat! But this winter the current would make even that a bit suicidal. Nearly all the finds have been in summer when even falling in would not really endanger an accompanied cacher (and of course you can't really fall off an abseiling rope if you're doing it right!). I'll assume it's with permission of the Council / British Waterways as they were called until recently.

Link to comment

I wasn't calling for its removal - a bit of at-your-own-risk-but-not-to-other-people danger and subversion is fine by me. I hope it stays! That's why I put "What do you make of..."?

There's a D1/T5 cache in my home city of Oxford - it's under a bridge over the Thames. You can abseil there, "spiderman" (feet on one girder, hands on the next) or of course go by boat! But this winter the current would make even that a bit suicidal. Nearly all the finds have been in summer when even falling in would not really endanger an accompanied cacher (and of course you can't really fall off an abseiling rope if you're doing it right!). I'll assume it's with permission of the Council / British Waterways as they were called until recently.

 

Oh yes, I'm sure you didn't want it to go away. What I make of it is Geocaching being a much more rogue underground activity on the European Mainland than it is in North America. We'd never rappel off an observation tower (archived cache in Germany from earlier in the thread) or climb up suspension cables on a pedestrian bridge (the cache you referenced). This does not necessarily apply to the UK, I've not personally heard of any of that kind of stuff going on. Although what you're saying in this post makes me wonder. :laughing:

 

I mean over here, it's a major controversy if an FTF hound runs out and finds a cache at 2:00 AM in a park that has posted dawn to dusk hours. While in Germany, the illegal stunting act of rappeling off an observation tower has 150 favorite points. Hello, culture shock. :P

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

There is one I'm very embarrassed about...

...He mentioned that its partially buried. I said I wasn't going to report it. Now I deeply regret this for three reasons. 1. The new cacher got the wrong message. It should have been reported. 2. Other new cachers could have seen it after me and decided it was okay to do. 3. I realized that the reviewer probably looked down the list of finders and saw who did not report it. That really embarrasses me. I want a good local reputation. That's not the way to get it.

 

I will report it next time.

 

Assuming this container is not much larger than a regular then isn't "half buried" kind of like 3 mph over the speed limit?

 

I see no need to either be embarrassed nor to report it.

 

I can imagine I would have responded to the newbie's question something like: It does appear to be partially buried and I am not too concerned about it. (Assuming it was not in-your-face disrespectful of a maintained landscape. It would have to truly look bad for it to raise to the N/A level for me.)

Link to comment

I wasn't calling for its removal - a bit of at-your-own-risk-but-not-to-other-people danger and subversion is fine by me. I hope it stays! That's why I put "What do you make of..."?

There's a D1/T5 cache in my home city of Oxford - it's under a bridge over the Thames. You can abseil there, "spiderman" (feet on one girder, hands on the next) or of course go by boat! But this winter the current would make even that a bit suicidal. Nearly all the finds have been in summer when even falling in would not really endanger an accompanied cacher (and of course you can't really fall off an abseiling rope if you're doing it right!). I'll assume it's with permission of the Council / British Waterways as they were called until recently.

 

Oh yes, I'm sure you didn't want it to go away. What I make of it is Geocaching being a much more rogue underground activity on the European Mainland than it is in North America. We'd never rappel off an observation tower (archived cache in Germany from earlier in the thread) or climb up suspension cables on a pedestrian bridge (the cache you referenced). This does not necessarily apply to the UK, I've not personally heard of any of that kind of stuff going on. Although what you're saying in this post makes me wonder. :laughing:

 

I mean over here, it's a major controversy if an FTF hound runs out and finds a cache at 2:00 AM in a park that has posted dawn to dusk hours. While in Germany, the illegal stunting act of rappeling off an observation tower has 150 favorite points. Hello, culture shock. :P

 

That post made me smile. I mean don't confuse me with Piers Morgan - but there are different attitudes to lots of things either side of the Atlantic aren't there? Which state is it where geocachers are legally required to carry a sub machine gun and a hunting rifle? ;)

Link to comment
I mean don't confuse me with Piers Morgan - but there are different attitudes to lots of things either side of the Atlantic aren't there? Which state is it where geocachers are legally required to carry a sub machine gun and a hunting rifle? ;)

- That would be Switzerland really, no State in the US would be allowed to require such a thing.

But I'm not so sure they can own hunting rifles - just machine guns.

Link to comment
I mean don't confuse me with Piers Morgan - but there are different attitudes to lots of things either side of the Atlantic aren't there? Which state is it where geocachers are legally required to carry a sub machine gun and a hunting rifle? ;)

- That would be Switzerland really, no State in the US would be allowed to require such a thing.

But I'm not so sure they can own hunting rifles - just machine guns.

 

Hehe excellent! I have a Danish hunting friend who managed to fatally shoot his Land Cruiser - all the cables under the steering column and a LONG way from the nearest road (by Danish standards) - but I digress.

 

I'm over in Vegas in 4 weeks and looking forward to caching there. At least one cache implies you have to dodge the eagle eye of the security guys - that's the sort of challenge I like! Not sure if it'll be in the middle of the night from jet-lag induced insomnia (or on the way back from a casino...) or daytime that I'll be out and about.

Link to comment

Last thread on the first page, before I brought it back to life. Because it's such a great thread and all. :lol: OK, I've stated my opinion often in this thread that "We just don't do things like climb a Mall sign, or Rappel off an active observation tower in North America". Several days ago, someone who probably didn't want to start an argument in the thread, or name any caches, sent me a PM saying there were indeed "illegal" Terrain 5's in North America. They gave me a couple usernames, and I found a Vinny and Sue Team "extreme caches" bookmark list. I first stated that I was aware of crazy caches (for example, one by King Pellinore in Central New Jersey that I chickened out on twice in like 2003 and 2004), but that they generally involved abandoned structures. I still generally stick by that theory, although I have found that there are caches in North America such as climbing to the top of a lamp post in a parking lot, or climb the girders of an active, in use highway bridge from the river below.

 

So if anyone wants to dispute that climbing the cables of an active suspension bridge, or rappeling off of a live, in everyday use observation tower is NOT a European thing, please go right ahead. I wouldn't give any links or anything though. You know, just stuff like I'm aware of a cache that involves climbing a Mall sign in the Mid-West, or something like that. :P

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...