Jump to content

Cache reviewed OK - Now Disabled by Reviewer..


Bozoid

Recommended Posts

Bozoid, you have had quite a response to your thread and I think its fair to say that the majority of people (on here at least), think that your cache placement has room for improvement but that's not to say we are all right. I am interested to hear your thoughts on our comments and would still really like to understand why you think that this is a good place for a cache? I'm not keen into going into battle over your reasons, I'm just genuinely curious :) .

Edited by thehoomer
Link to comment

Interesting.

 

I've crossed very busy roads where a footpath crosses... also mainline railways. In both cases I've felt a little scared. A dual carriageway would be worse.. though it is a public footpath.

 

In my view, hiding the cache in the barrier area is not a good idea. Looking for a cache involves looking for the container - probably bending down, signing the log, etc - not the normal activities drivers will expect. Drivers will only expect someone crossing or looking to cross.

 

Now how about a multi cache, where stage 1 is on one side (well away from the road) and stage 2 on the other? I think that would be OK. Of course then the crossing can be avoided by going the long way around... but it would still bring cachers to this spot and they can cross the road if they like. Or hide a series of caches, some on each side.

 

In an odd way I do think a footpath across a dual carriageway is an interesting feature in itself.

Link to comment

I've been watching this thread with interest. I haven't visited the cache under discussion - though I have driven that section of the A41 many times - but I have visited the identical one which has been mentioned. I didn't have any concerns visiting that cache and I wouldn't have any concerns about visiting this cache.

 

There are two main issues here: the safety of cachers and the safety of motorists. The safety of cachers is up to the cachers. There's no requirement to visit every cache and if you don't think you'll enjoy it, or think it's not for you when you get there, then don't visit. The safety of motorists is up to the motorists. Whenever a right of way crosses a major road like this there are usually - as there are here - signs warning of pedestrians crossing and motorists should adjust their speed and attention accordingly. The person in the central reservation may be a rambler waiting to cross the road. He may even sit down to wait for a suitable gap in the traffic. How are those actions any different from those of a cacher, providing that the cache is easy to find?

 

That said, I believe that the cache owner is sending entirely the wrong signals by the description and D/T ratings. I don't know if it's always been 5/4 but in any case that rating, together with the wording, is saying "here's a dangerous cache - attempt it if you're stupid and/or brave enough". I find it hard to believe that the cache is really "a serious mental or physical challenge" (D5) and has "very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike or requires an overnight stay" (T4). What the cache owner should be saying is that this is an easy find and there's no need to linger in the central reservation, hence D1 or possibly D1.5; and that it's on a right of way where it crosses a dual carriageway which can sometimes be busy so care is required. I'd suggest T2.5. That, together with modified wording, should say "here's an unusual cache: take care". For comparison, the other cache is D1.5/T1.5 and has a much more mellow description. For some reason, though it's been in place much longer, it hasn't attracted the criticism - or the finds, relative to time - that the subject cache has.

 

I recall an "extreme" cache which was placed on a motorway bridge where it was necessary to climb out on the bridge above the traffic. That was archived on the same grounds as this one will be: that cachers take their own risks but cachers were causing a distraction to motorists. I don't believe this one is in the same vein: this cache is on a public right of way and the government, when dualling the A41, didn't feel it necessary to build a bridge or tunnel and therefore it must be safe to cross with care here. There are many instances of rights of way crossings such as this.

 

I also recall a cache which I suggested be moved because it required crossing the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (the cache was placed before the busway opened). My reason wasn't the danger - though that was a factor - but rather that a bye-law prohibited trespassing on the busway and therefore a cacher could bring the hobby into disrepute.

 

My point is that each case must be decided on its merits and I don't believe that the cache under discussion is a problem per se though the cache page does require modification. Regrettably I don't think that will happen as the cache owner has left the reviewer with no room for manoeuvre by ignoring the cache for three months then simply re-enabliing it in the same location. In response, the reviewer had no option but to publicly state that it must be moved or it will be archived. The cache owner should have discussed options with the reviewer and perhaps a compromise could have been reached. It's too late now.

 

Mention has been made of why the owner thinks this is a good location for a cache. Quality is, of course, subjective. In my view most caches these days are placed in uninteresting - to me - locations. No cache owner should have to explain why they think their cache is in a good place: that's for the seeker to determine.

Link to comment

For a change, I'm going to post without having read all the other logs to this posting. Perhaps I'll regret it, but not as much as someone's family if they get killed trying to find this cache.

 

Looking at Googlemaps, it is right in the middle of the A41, a dual carriageway which I know well, and which was intended to be the M41 but through lack of funds, never quite got up-classed. That said, it's a very busy dual carriageway and whilst I imagine then D/T ratings are in reflection of this and all cachers recognise that they undertake the risk of such ratings (or any other) by being accountable only to themselves, this one seems to be completely irresponsible.

 

Are people so very keen to cross that particular D/T rating off their list that their lives are to be put at risk? You could argue that a 5/5 might include a rock climb where, should you fall, it might mean curtains, but this is one where the hapless motorist may be held up to a charge of manslaughter, etc. They have enough distractions already and as it appears that the cache might be hidden in the barrier, don't we also already have enough of these?

 

I'd archive it. Original idea and all that, but no-one's life is worth the smilie face.

 

:o

Link to comment

For a change, I'm going to post without having read all the other logs to this posting. Perhaps I'll regret it, but not as much as someone's family if they get killed trying to find this cache.

 

Looking at Googlemaps, it is right in the middle of the A41, a dual carriageway which I know well, and which was intended to be the M41 but through lack of funds, never quite got up-classed. That said, it's a very busy dual carriageway and whilst I imagine then D/T ratings are in reflection of this and all cachers recognise that they undertake the risk of such ratings (or any other) by being accountable only to themselves, this one seems to be completely irresponsible.

 

Are people so very keen to cross that particular D/T rating off their list that their lives are to be put at risk? You could argue that a 5/5 might include a rock climb where, should you fall, it might mean curtains, but this is one where the hapless motorist may be held up to a charge of manslaughter, etc. They have enough distractions already and as it appears that the cache might be hidden in the barrier, don't we also already have enough of these?

 

I'd archive it. Original idea and all that, but no-one's life is worth the smilie face.

 

:o

It IS a bad idea to post without reading the thread first, but the point with this cache isn't that it's likely to put cachers' lives at risk (all they are required to do is cross a road at the designated corssing point). It's whether motorists are being distracted and annoyed. Personally, I think the fact that recent finders have been warned by passing drivers is the key point which tips the balance of this case in favour of the reviewer. It may be the case that when muggles cross at this point they often have headlights flashed at them too, but I don't see that adding to the problem is a good idea.

 

And Alan is quite right to point out that whether this is a "good" cache or not has no bearing on whether it should stay or go. But on balance, if I was the CO I'd move the cache to one side of the road and both make it a more pleasant experience and a less controversial one.

Link to comment

For a change, I'm going to post without having read all the other logs to this posting. Perhaps I'll regret it, but not as much as someone's family if they get killed trying to find this cache.

 

Looking at Googlemaps, it is right in the middle of the A41, a dual carriageway which I know well, and which was intended to be the M41 but through lack of funds, never quite got up-classed. That said, it's a very busy dual carriageway and whilst I imagine then D/T ratings are in reflection of this and all cachers recognise that they undertake the risk of such ratings (or any other) by being accountable only to themselves, this one seems to be completely irresponsible.

 

Are people so very keen to cross that particular D/T rating off their list that their lives are to be put at risk? You could argue that a 5/5 might include a rock climb where, should you fall, it might mean curtains, but this is one where the hapless motorist may be held up to a charge of manslaughter, etc. They have enough distractions already and as it appears that the cache might be hidden in the barrier, don't we also already have enough of these?

 

I'd archive it. Original idea and all that, but no-one's life is worth the smilie face.

 

:o

It IS a bad idea to post without reading the thread first, but the point with this cache isn't that it's likely to put cachers' lives at risk (all they are required to do is cross a road at the designated corssing point). It's whether motorists are being distracted and annoyed. Personally, I think the fact that recent finders have been warned by passing drivers is the key point which tips the balance of this case in favour of the reviewer. It may be the case that when muggles cross at this point they often have headlights flashed at them too, but I don't see that adding to the problem is a good idea.

 

And Alan is quite right to point out that whether this is a "good" cache or not has no bearing on whether it should stay or go. But on balance, if I was the CO I'd move the cache to one side of the road and both make it a more pleasant experience and a less controversial one.

Wow - a bad idea. Never mind, I don't regret it and stand by my earlier comments, especially as I do know the road in question. Always thought it was daft allowing pedestrians to cross there, but there we are. We can't all be wrapped in cotton wool; on the other hand, I shall not take the risk and wouldn't set such a cache which I think COULD endanger others, be they pedestrians or drivers/passengers.

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

I've been watching this thread with interest. I haven't visited the cache under discussion - though I have driven that section of the A41 many times - but I have visited the identical one which has been mentioned. I didn't have any concerns visiting that cache and I wouldn't have any concerns about visiting this cache.

 

There are two main issues here: the safety of cachers and the safety of motorists. The safety of cachers is up to the cachers. There's no requirement to visit every cache and if you don't think you'll enjoy it, or think it's not for you when you get there, then don't visit. The safety of motorists is up to the motorists. Whenever a right of way crosses a major road like this there are usually - as there are here - signs warning of pedestrians crossing and motorists should adjust their speed and attention accordingly. The person in the central reservation may be a rambler waiting to cross the road. He may even sit down to wait for a suitable gap in the traffic. How are those actions any different from those of a cacher, providing that the cache is easy to find?

 

That said, I believe that the cache owner is sending entirely the wrong signals by the description and D/T ratings. I don't know if it's always been 5/4 but in any case that rating, together with the wording, is saying "here's a dangerous cache - attempt it if you're stupid and/or brave enough". I find it hard to believe that the cache is really "a serious mental or physical challenge" (D5) and has "very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike or requires an overnight stay" (T4). What the cache owner should be saying is that this is an easy find and there's no need to linger in the central reservation, hence D1 or possibly D1.5; and that it's on a right of way where it crosses a dual carriageway which can sometimes be busy so care is required. I'd suggest T2.5. That, together with modified wording, should say "here's an unusual cache: take care". For comparison, the other cache is D1.5/T1.5 and has a much more mellow description. For some reason, though it's been in place much longer, it hasn't attracted the criticism - or the finds, relative to time - that the subject cache has.

 

I recall an "extreme" cache which was placed on a motorway bridge where it was necessary to climb out on the bridge above the traffic. That was archived on the same grounds as this one will be: that cachers take their own risks but cachers were causing a distraction to motorists. I don't believe this one is in the same vein: this cache is on a public right of way and the government, when dualling the A41, didn't feel it necessary to build a bridge or tunnel and therefore it must be safe to cross with care here. There are many instances of rights of way crossings such as this.

 

I also recall a cache which I suggested be moved because it required crossing the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (the cache was placed before the busway opened). My reason wasn't the danger - though that was a factor - but rather that a bye-law prohibited trespassing on the busway and therefore a cacher could bring the hobby into disrepute.

 

My point is that each case must be decided on its merits and I don't believe that the cache under discussion is a problem per se though the cache page does require modification. Regrettably I don't think that will happen as the cache owner has left the reviewer with no room for manoeuvre by ignoring the cache for three months then simply re-enabliing it in the same location. In response, the reviewer had no option but to publicly state that it must be moved or it will be archived. The cache owner should have discussed options with the reviewer and perhaps a compromise could have been reached. It's too late now.

 

Mention has been made of why the owner thinks this is a good location for a cache. Quality is, of course, subjective. In my view most caches these days are placed in uninteresting - to me - locations. No cache owner should have to explain why they think their cache is in a good place: that's for the seeker to determine.

I agree.

The OP has provoked this discussion with the posting of the thread though and whilst he/she does not 'have' to answer the question of why they think the cache is in a good location, short of visiting and in the light of what has been said, it leaves me to only speculate. This speculation, coupled with the cache title/text, brings me to one reason for the caches placement - the danger aspect. This being the case, I feel it is an irresponsible and foolhardy reason to place a cache and not in the true spirit of what Geocaching is about as I understand it. I could go and complete the cache to formulate a true opinion for myself but I feel I have heard and read enough to place it firmly on my ignore list and head for caches which don’t (potentially) set my heart racing for all the wrong reasons. Blinkered? May be but there it is.

All this said, I appreciate that there are some on here who have visited and thought the cache was good. Its just not one for me I’m afraid. Horses for courses and all that.

Link to comment

looking on streetview, the central reservation is pretty narrow so is not nessersary the safest place. However being a crossing for a public footpath does mean pedestrians CAN wait around be at that spot as it is a safe(ish) place to wait for traffic to clear before crossing the second carrageway. However, one thing I did notice was the lack of signs informing drivers that pedestrians cross ahead. which would explain why some are blowing their horns. as there is no warning about the crossing for motorists. At the very least the CO should give the cache a very discriptive hint that tells exactly where to look so they can cross over and find the cache as quickly as possible.

Link to comment

looking on streetview ... one thing I did notice was the lack of signs informing drivers that pedestrians cross ahead.

As has already been mentioned, there are signs. To the northwest of the cache there are signs on both sides of the southbound carriageway at N51°46.237 W000°36.716; and to the southeast of the cache there are signs on both sides of the northbound carriageway at N51°45.266 W000°35.277. All the signs say "Pedestrians crossing for 1¼ miles", in order to cater for the three crossing points in this 1½ miles of road.

Link to comment

As has already been mentioned, there are signs. To the northwest of the cache there are signs on both sides of the southbound carriageway at N51°46.237 W000°36.716; and to the southeast of the cache there are signs on both sides of the northbound carriageway at N51°45.266 W000°35.277. All the signs say "Pedestrians crossing for 1¼ miles", in order to cater for the three crossing points in this 1½ miles of road.

Thanks for the pointers. I was curious to see how drivers were warned about this crossing. I'm sure it's a cultural thing, but those signs strike me as hilarious. Do drivers really pay any attention to them? It's hard for me to imagine that a driver would think back to some little signs he passed a minute before when he encountered some people in the middle of the road searching the guard rail.

 

I don't think these signs have any bearing on the cache other than to reenforce that this is an authorized crossing point.

Link to comment

But it all comes back to does this cache have permission? I would be surprised (having worked in Highways for several years) it has been. If it has not then byebye... :(

If it has got permission, will that then make it safer? I don't see the relevance.

All caches HAVE to have permission, unless I've missed something over the years... (safety doesn't come in to it).. If it doesn't have permission it should be archived. The guidelines are very clear on this. If the Highways Agency, Local council are happy for the placement and have given their permission then they must have been persuaded that the location is ok. I have had to do this on several occasions with my caches. Regards Max

Link to comment
those signs strike me as hilarious. Do drivers really pay any attention to them? It's hard for me to imagine that a driver would think back to some little signs he passed a minute before when he encountered some people in the middle of the road searching the guard rail.

Those signs are the standard size and shape in the UK for warnings of that type. It's a road user's responsibility to pay attention to all signs: failing to do so can result in anything from a mild ticking off through spending several years inside for causing death by dangerous driving to err... death.

 

As for remembering the signs, it's quite common for a driver to be required to remember signs: it's even part of the driving test ("What was the last warning sign you passed?"). As an example, I've just "driven" west from GC2KY4G, north on Willow, and it was over ¾ of a mile before I saw another speed limit sign. That's the arrangement over here, too: you're required to remember the instructions until they no longer apply.

 

I don't think these signs have any bearing on the cache other than to reenforce that this is an authorized crossing point.

They give a warning that anytime in the next 1¼ miles a driver may see pedestrians crossing the road and all that that entails. A person in the central reservation (median) shouldn't therefore come as a surprise to a driver who's paying attention, regardless of why the pedestrian is there. This is one half of the dichotomy I find myself in.

 

The other half is that, as has been mentioned already in the thread, someone has recently been charged with seven counts of manslaughter for organising a fireworks display which allegedly caused smoke to drift across a nearby motorway resulting in a major accident. We don't yet know the outcome of that case but it should remind us of why the reviewer has questioned the cache placement (and, perhaps, why previous similar placements haven't been). I doubt that we want to see a headline such as "Motorist dies when distracted by treasure hunt". This is where the reviewer's concern is coming from though there are many such crossing points and it seems that many of them have caches. There's little doubt that the hobby has become much more safety-conscious in recent years. Whether that's good or bad is for another thread...

Link to comment

Those signs are the standard size and shape in the UK for warnings of that type. It's a road user's responsibility to pay attention to all signs: failing to do so can result in anything from a mild ticking off through spending several years inside for causing death by dangerous driving to err... death.

I understand that the point of the signs it to put the responsibility on the driver. But in the US, that wouldn't work because it would be unreasonable to expect that the driver would really remember a stray sign a mile back when they came upon people in an unmarked crossing, and the appropriate authorities would still be held responsible for any problems there. I'm interpreting your comment to be saying that, in fact, UK drivers are much more responsible about this kind of thing.

 

They give a warning that anytime in the next 1¼ miles a driver may see pedestrians crossing the road and all that that entails. A person in the central reservation (median) shouldn't therefore come as a surprise to a driver who's paying attention, regardless of why the pedestrian is there.

OK, so from your local perspective, these signs really do improve the safety of people seeking the cache. Thanks, that's good to know. Another cultural difference for me to keep in mind.

Link to comment

I'm interpreting your comment to be saying that, in fact, UK drivers are much more responsible about this kind of thing.

 

Well, they're legally held responsible, whether they actually are responsible is another matter.

 

Going back to the topic, I don't object to the cache in and of itself (EDIT: although we wouldn't be going to look for it) but I did object to the wording of the cache description, which in this situation requires a mature and thoughtful outlook. Speaking of which, taking a beef with a reviewer to the forums is never the way to go. That's what we have an appeals process for.

Edited by Beach_hut
Link to comment

Well ... I have read all those posts ... phew

 

On the last post I would disagree. Taking a reviewer to task on the forums is totally acceptable and legitimate way to deal with an issue. How you take them to task is another matter. In order to deal with this issue it is important to get perspective. A way of doing that is to ask other cachers their opinion. This can be used to either encourage the cache setter to appeal or to have a rethink. If we imply that dealing with this type of situation on a forum, which may lead to a reviewer being brought to task is "not the way to go" it sets the reviewer above us. It implies that we have to keep them sweet. The end result being that they end up thinking we have to keep them sweet. And that is NOT the way to go. They are our friends and colleagues and a guide but most of all fellow cachers. If our friends are rude, dismissive, or give poor guidance we ditch them. Not a choice we have with reviewers. So a mutual respect should be cultured NOT fawning to a higher power. But Asking in front of their and our peers on this forum, if they are being fair and reasonable. This is not a point of contention but common bleedin sense. To suggest otherwise is to encourage a divide where there should be none.

 

That said I think on this occasion my feelings are and they are only my feelings, that the placement of this cache is good from the respect of the cacher. Its boundary pushing and for me might as well be at the bottom of the ocean. I would be far too petrified to go and get it. I have been run over and it hurts alot and I live with the memory of it every minute of my day and night. If I did go and get it though, I would feel I had achieved something. Everyone is different.

 

From the perspective of safety though I think its a stupid place to put it. A pedestrian walking across a bypass on a footpath is likely to cause a sudden amount of concentration on the part of a road user seeing a person crossing. It may force them into a sudden decision they would not have made ordinarily. But it is a public footpath and as such, this may happen cache or no. But a pedestrian loitering in and around the barrier will distract. People are nosy. Anything could happen really. And if something does happen, as the cache setter I would know I may have contributed to that and in this day and age would fear that legal retribution would be swift and harsh not to mention the guilt. A coverall statement "you cache at your won risk" would mean nothing in a court, believe it or not. So on this occasion I applaud the reviewer and I really applaud their openness and helpful attitude. That is in my opinion, how a reviewer should behave. Like a friend pointing out variables that may come back to bite me. Done with respect and cooperation instead of superior dismissive and pompous language which drives people from the sport.

 

Its all my opinion and means nothing though and good luck to any brave soul who takes that one on lol. I would rather eat my own geni***s :blink: :blink:

Link to comment
...it is right in the middle of the A41, a dual carriageway which I know well, and which was intended to be the M41 but through lack of funds, never quite got up-classed.
The Tring Bypass section was the A41(M) for many years, and thus technically a motorway with all the usual restrictions (don't take your bicycle or horse on it, etc) and features (only two lanes each way, but a hard shoulder and central reservation with crash barriers to keep traffic apart). Another feature of motorways is they get bridges and tunnels for pedestrian crossings, never footpaths across them; even single-lane motorways or slip-roads.

 

I can see both arguments for and against this cache as it's on a public footpath, but if I were reviewing it, I'd ask myself 'does it meet the usual cache-setting criteria?' - if it does, I'd suggest the owner makes the hazards very clear (as with a cache on a tidal island or other 'risky location') and allow it to stand. If it fails some test - such as a blanket ban on caches in such locations - I'd make that clear to the setter and show it against a background of consistency. But I'm not a reviewer so this is so much whistling in the wind :)

 

I hope the issue gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

If this was the case then I'm sure the Highways Authority wouldn't have allowed the public footpath to cross the road without either a bridge or tunnel being built, because ANY pedestrian is likely to 'loiter' while waiting for a gap in the traffic surely?

The waiting pedestrian will be facing traffic and paying attention to it. The driver won't have any idea what the searching cacher with his butt in the air is doing and which way he's likely to head next.

 

There may very well be other reasons for disabling this cache, but I still don't believe it can be done simply on the grounds of safety.

Yeah, that I agree with. Even though I think there's a valid point to taking into account the point of view of the passing drivers, I think those issues could be dealt with if the CO took the issues seriously. The problem seems to be that the CO thinks that saying it's not as dangerous as rock climbing is sufficient warning about potential problems.

Link to comment

I think it's a daft place for a cache. Crossing a road like that should involve someone's full attention or they could easily end up like a hedgehog.

 

There is also the public perception aspect. How sensible and sane would this placement appear to non-cachers? If it looks 'stupidly dangerous' then it's simply not a good idea. If anything ever happened to someone and it came out that they were geocaching in the middle of a main road, how might that impact our hobby? Hmmmmm! Does the cache owner fancy standing in a coroner's court trying to explain why they set this cache, and then face the press outside, and the grieving relatives - of the car driver, killed when they had to avoid a geocacher, and caused a crash with a lorry.

 

Setting a challenging cache that involves others in the form of muggle drivers isn't a good idea under any circumstances, and it would seem the point of the cache is to "play with the traffic". This is completely different to climbing caches etc where the risk is to yourself, and can be easily managed with the right gear and know-how.

 

Ok, it's perhaps a small risk that this cache will lead to terrible consequences, but it's not very far fetched. The likelyhood may be small but the potential outcomes are horrendous. We really don't need to take this sort of risk, so let's not approve caches that do. Simlple really.

Link to comment

But a pedestrian loitering in and around the barrier will distract.

 

Really? If this was the case then I'm sure the Highways Authority wouldn't have allowed the public footpath to cross the road without either a bridge or tunnel being built, because ANY pedestrian is likely to 'loiter' while waiting for a gap in the traffic surely?

 

There may very well be other reasons for disabling this cache, but I still don't believe it can be done simply on the grounds of safety.

 

No not really I was being alarmist of course ... <_<

 

As for a bridge/tunnel/heliport/teleportation device being built it comes down to planning laws, budget and then environmental impact. Not initially safety. If the footpath had been able to be ignored it would have been. Closed and forgotten simply because it is the easiest cheapest option. But thankfully there are a whole different bunch of do gooders to appeal against that so a compromise using the aforementioned criteria is used. Part of which but not exclusively is a safety case. Its not a simple case as your comment would imply.

 

As for the cache being disabled on a case of safety it has to be considered certainly. In the same way a cache cannot be published on an airfield (there are exceptions) for reasons of security and safety. Its surely down to the rules which are applied, uniformly and with common sense. Which in this case I would say they have. I get where the defenders of this cache are coming from. Its obvious. Give a little here, backslide a little there and pretty soon we can only place a chache as long as its in a skip sized bright orange box that says cache is here. But the reason that happens is because:

1. Someone gets a cache through by being honest or liberal with the truth

2. Someone else tries the same and gets told no.

3. This results in a public debate.

4. The end result being a blanket ruling from now on to prevent similar cases.

 

So an option is nibbled away. And next year another and next week a bit more etc. Really we are our own worst enemies.

 

The only easy way is, if you are not asked, dont tell. If you get caught out move the cache and obey the rules. I know some will say that this is a terrible way to behave but then don't put the reviewers in a position where they have to take a stand. Because inevitably geocaching will ere on the side of least hassle and potential issues and follow the reviewers recommendation. I mean they work for free right? B)

Link to comment

Hmmm ... having watched some pedestrians I'm not sure they're always paying attention to traffic either :laughing:

That's really the point. Those signs a mile back are there precisely to warn drivers that they may have to react to pedestrians not paying attention just in case they do something stupid. Not only does a cache look to drivers like a pedestrian not paying attention, if they have trouble finding the cache, they really won't be paying attention and might do something stupid.

 

One common problem in this kind of situation is that most people, including COs, imagine the cache being in position, so it's a simple find and the only issue is the cacher signing the log. But what makes an area like this scary is imagining that the cache is missing. First of all, that would mean the cacher will be out there in the middle of the highway much longer than intended. But even worse, the cacher will start considering other possibilities beyond what the CO would have considered, like "Perhaps he hid it outside the barriers..."

Link to comment

On the last post I would disagree. Taking a reviewer to task on the forums is totally acceptable and legitimate way to deal with an issue. How you take them to task is another matter.

 

Point taken. I have seen this happen before and not end prettily (although the example I was thinking of was more clear cut than this and flagrantly against guidelines)

 

I still think the cache description cannot stand as is, irrespective of the actual cache, and hence Red Duster was right to disable it as the reviewer reviews both. I will join you in a g****al feast as we're not going to go and find this cache either.

Link to comment

Here is a very brutal thought,

 

Do we wish to see the death of another UK Cacher, whilst out Physically Geocaching, because of the Location of the Container? Even worse do we wish to see a innocent person(s) killed, due to a unthoughtful Geocacher?

 

The Reviewers do not take into account "personal safety" when Reviewing a Cache Submission, because it is down to each person to make his/her own assessment. So even if the cache is in a dangerous place, such as "under a bridge", the person having taken into consideration of their own safety, falls and kills themselves. The Reviewer has done due diligence.

 

So sadly in the case of Ewan-Billy Twiggers cache, where he had his serious accident whilst placing. Which for those who do not know, was 12ft up a Rock Face, Ewan fell backwards and landed on his kneck, breaking his vertebra, he spent several years in Hospital, in and out of a Coma. And was a Permanent Quadriplegic. I would have happily published that cache submission, if it had come into the queue. Because

 

It is up to each Individual Geocacher, to make their own H&S assessment before attempting a Cache.

 

However when a Geocache or Geocacher puts "At Risk" others, who have no idea what is going on. So have not taken their own H&S risk assessment of the situation happening in front of them. That is a different situation completely. Now your not only putting your own safety a"At Risk" after careful consideration, by your very actions your putting others "At Risk", and that is not a acceptable situation.

 

The Met Agreement and Wetherby Incident were created by the action of Geocachers, luckily no one was harmed in any way. But it was the actions of the persons involved, not the Containers themselves, that caused both! Or how about the Gentleman caching with his young daughters, who basically got accused by a Stranger of being a Paedophile! Again because of the Perception of his actions, not fitting the "Norm"

 

So we have a Cache in a Unmarked RoW, in the middle of a highway. The high chances of a Driver ever seeing someone use it will be so slim, that even though they see the warning signs on a daily basis, they will blank them out (there is a similar type of crossing, near where I live, I regularly use that road. And have yet to see anyone use it). So all of a sudden whilst passing another vehicle at 70mph, they do not see what would be expected to be seen. A Pedestrian stood in the gap in the Armco Barrier, waiting for a safe gap in the traffic. But someone feeling the inside of the Armco Barrier (which is back to back, with no gap between, in which a Pedestrian could Stand). The person suddenly over reaches (maybe because their searching the wrong side of the Gap) and falls into the Lane and in the way of the on coming Traffic. Even if the cacher is not hit by a Vehicle, the subsequent carnage would be disastrous.

 

And it is the risk of that sort of situation, involving Drivers on one side, and Rubbernecking drivers on the other side, involved in a secondary accident . Which is why the Cache Location is not suitable, nothing to do with the safety of the Cacher searching for it.

 

One of the hardest lessons for a New Reviewer is, "we do not take into account the risk to personal safety!" So however dangerous the location is, that is not our concern, however the safety of others, not taking part in our hobby, due to the actions of a Geocacher, has to be taken into account. For the Future of our Hobby.

 

As some of the longer term members will testify, I've personally Published some extreme Geocaches, 2 examples were Tribute to 2 of my Colleagues who resigned April 2008. In fact I even got complaints about them, the person stated that they should not be in their locations, as it was extremely dangerous to access them. Note that was dangerous for the Geocacher, my reply was that as it was up to each Geocacher to make their own H&S assessment, and if they were not happy to walk away. And that either was not presenting a risk to Non Geocachers.

 

So to recap, there are enough examples of the actions of Geocachers, causing major issues, without the actions of Geocachers causing the death of someone not involved in the hobby. Dangerous Locations to the Geocacher are fine, as each makes his/her own H&S assessment and either goes for it, or walk away. Locations where the actions of a Geocacher, present a danger to Non Geocachers, is not acceptable.

 

Anyone looking for Kudos, by owning a Cache in the second type of Location, has no care for either the Geocachers Searching for their cache, the Non Geocachers put at risk. And more importantly, has no care for the future of the Hobby in the UK!

 

I have had to deal with the loss of a number of UK Geocachers, the worst case being that of Ewan, but non of them were easy to deal with on a personal level. I hope and pray, that neither my colleagues or myself , have to deal with the aftermath of the Death of Non Geocachers, because of the actions of a Geocacher(s). Because not only would that be devastating at a personal level, it would be devastating for the Hobby in the UK!

 

So before you come out swing at me in support of the cache and it's location. Please think very carefully about the above. And whether you wish a Long Term Future for the Hobby in the UK! Because that is what the UK Reviewers face, keep the community happy, or look to the future of the hobby. The 2 are not mutually the same. We are no longer the Underground Hobby, some still seem to believe we are, and huge changes are the result of that.

 

Deci

PS: I want to see Geocaching thriving well into 2300 onwards. Do You?

Link to comment

I think Deci summed it up pretty well. We get to make the decision for ourselves whether we climb a rock face, abseil off a precipice or attempt a dive for a cache.

 

This cache could leave people wondering whether it was hidden somewhere on the road side of the barrier (especially with a high D/T rating) and end up taking silly risks. For all they are responsible for their own safety when silly risks end up causing fast traffic to swerve - a driver might expect a pedestrian to be crossing but unprepared for a person to be leaning across the barrier, or crouched by the barrier in the road, or in some other position where one would not normally expect to find a pedestrian - the chances of causing a serious accident to people totally unrelated to our game rise. Causing needless danger to people who are merely driving on a public road seems like a spectacularly silly thing to do.

 

In the same way I'd expect a cache on the underside of a bridge over a river to be published but a cache on the underside of a bridge over a motorway to be rejected. If a cacher falls to their death in the river they only affect themselves; if a cacher falls to their death on the motorway below they could easily cause a pile up, and could cause an accident as people are distracted from the road wondering what that idiot climbing on the bridge thinks he's doing.

Link to comment

I don't always agree with Deci but think this statement was well set out and likely the correct view.

 

If only we were all responsible Cache Owners.

 

After visiting a cache with quite a few DNF's and I added one too.

 

My major concern though was a log before mine saying a searcher had gone track side of a major railway line.

 

My NA log http://coord.info/GL9MP3PA was soon counteracted by the CO and the cache disabled.

 

The cache is still disabled 5 weeks on. How long does it take to check the presence of the original cache and convey that on the page or take the appropriate action?

 

So points to consider are;

 

Even if a cache is realistically place at publication will it remain so.

Will it move by natural migration (I know some of mine do).

Will the CO ensure it is always as first placed?

Will if it does go missing increse the risk factor?

Can we rule out the actions of irresponsible cachers.

 

Imagine the publicity if that cacher on the railway line had caused services to be suspended.

 

I don't expect to be around in 2300 but I do desire to enjoy caching as long as I can but all I see since beginning in 2005 is a decine in standards.

 

Lets work together and get our caches up to scratch, if you have one disabled or needing attention tomorrow is the day to fix it.

Edited by Malpas Wanderer
Link to comment

I don't disagree with the general thrust of Deceangi's post though as usual it's couched in emotive language and presents only one side of the argument. On this occasion it also contains factual inaccuracies.

 

So we have a Cache in a Unmarked RoW...

...the Armco Barrier (which is back to back, with no gap between

The right of way is clearly marked, both on maps and on the ground: there are fingerposts, steps, and markers on both sides of the carriageway. The statement about there being no gap between the barriers is strange, as Deceangi's previous sentence says that there is a gap and indeed, as StreetView clearly shows, there is a gap between the barriers which overlap as is normal at this type of crossing.

 

Deceangi suggests that this particular right of way may not be used often. I, and he, don't know whether that's true though even if it is it has no bearing on the safety or otherwise of the cache placement. If a motorist "do[es] not see what would be expected to be seen." despite having been warned about the possibility and even expecting it then he has only himself to blame.

 

What is true is that there are many ROWs in that area, including four (I said earlier it was three: closer inspection reveals four) which cross the A41 at road level in that short stretch. Are all of them unused? One of the great benefits of geocaching in England is that it can help to keep open rights of way which might otherwise fall into disuse. If Deceangi is right then this cache is helping to preserve a precious resource and will alert regular users of the road that the signs are there for a reason.

 

Deceangi asks if we want the hobby to continue: certainly I do, but I want it to continue with caches which are interesting, unusual, historical, amusing or in beautiful places, as well as the boring caches which seem to be much in vogue. The modern, anodyne, least-common-denominator, micro-on-a-street-sign caches are the direct result of the health and safety attitude which pervades so much of society and has sadly recently made its way into geocaching.

 

Those in authority have an obligation to consider issues such as this dispassionately and objectively, giving attention to all aspects before arriving at a decision. It's quite reasonable for a reviewer to question the placement, and it's quite reasonable for the cache owner and other cachers to question the decision and the inconsistency. Unfortunately this discussion will make no difference as the outcome was decided on 23rd August and reinforced by the cache owner on 29th November, and so we have yet another rule and yet another lost unusual cache.

Link to comment

Well, it may be a slippery slope to disallowing this kind of cache in the future but personally, if its a toss up between losing a cache of this nature as a hide option, versus potentially bringing Geocaching into disrepute or worse still, loss of life, surely there is no question? Perspective. In situations such as this, I prefer to weigh up the worse possible outcome of each scenario - Absolutely no contest.

 

Geocaching was destined to morph with the passage of time and as with most activities/organisations, the safety of those involved can not be overlooked. Sometimes we have to be told ‘we can’t’, to protect us from ourselves. I know Im possibly in the minority but I’m ok with that. Plenty more caches out there.

Link to comment

Dont bother arguing with the 'reviewers' - they publish and archive with free will.

 

I too have had caches published and then archived because the 'reviewer' did not understand the cache, did not read the cache description correct and then decided to archive the cache.

 

They do not apologise or retract their wrong doings. It is futile and wasting your time. Simply archive all your caches so you dont have to deal with them again, that is my opinion.

 

Red Duster states

"It now appears that innocent drivers are being put at risk by people in the central reservation and they have been taking avoiding action" - Have they reported this to him directly? How did they reach him? He once archived a cache as he had been "told by police that the cache was illegal" - When I requested from him the PCs badge number and station so I could contact them directly to discuss, this information was all of a sudden 'not available'

 

Have find finding caches that others place but dont put any more of your own out, its simply not worth the hassle.

Edited by firestars
Link to comment

But isn't that the point?

 

Your view is that there are plenty of other caches out there, and I agree. No one insists that everyone, or indeed anyone, should visit this cash. I don't climb trees to get to caches, or rock faces, but I wouldn't suggest their removal simply because someone might fall and break their neck.

 

The point is more about exposing people who are nothing to do with geocaching to a level of risk they might not expect.

 

If I go rock climbing I can decide for myself whether to take the chance or not based on conditions, my level of skill, my determination to get the smiley, whatever. If someone is hunting a cache in a road barrier and does something silly (chances are sooner or later someone won't accept it's probably not there and end up standing in the road to hunt from the other side, or some such) they expose other road users to a hazard that shouldn't be there and wouldn't be there were it not for the cache. The risk to the other road users is the problem, if the cacher does something silly and dies as a result then from a practical perspective it's little different to anyone else doing something silly and dying as a result.

 

If I put wet fingers into my light bulb socket and fry myself there's no point blaming the electricity company for the danger. If I put wet fingers into my light bulb socket and my next door neighbour's house burns down as a result they would have a more reasonable case to press.

Link to comment

I think most of what I would say has been said. But I will add just the following points:

 

- The safety barrier is there to prevent a vehicle from one carriageway entering the opposite carriageway. This is a metal safety fence and it will perform its function by deflecting under the impact, potentially quite a long way and perhaps almost to the other side of the median. Therefore, a cacher standing behind the barrier is not protected from a vehicle hitting the barrier and will almost certainly be severly injured.

 

- I think it likely that the footpath will have had some form of risk assessment to determine whether it is OK to remain crossing the road in this way. Part of the input to such a risk assessment would have been how frequently people cross the road and what is the time of exposure to danger (probably based on people having to wait a short time for a gap in the traffic). The presence of a geocache will likely increase the number of people crossing the road and the time that they are exposed to danger (perhaps significantly in both cases). Therefore, the geocache may possibly significantly increase the overall risks associated with the footpath crossing the road. So, to say that there is no difference to the risks before the cache was placed is not correct in my opinion.

Link to comment

Frowning upon placing a cache that deliberately sets out to invite people to accept the challenge of playing with the traffic, isn't being too 'safety conscious', it's just common sense that it's a risk involving others that doesn't need to be taken just for the 'fun of it'.

 

I guess then that would rule out the one in this thread above the pond, danger of falling in and drowning, as it's a "risk that doesn't need to be taken just for the fun of it" :rolleyes:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=304763

 

Note I'm not suggesting it should be, but it just illustrates that there is confusion over what is and, apparently, is not allowed.

The point is, the cacher who is teetering above the pond is only putting himself/herself at risk.

Link to comment

Somebody just walking across the road could do 'something silly' ... but no one's stopping them.

 

I appreciate though what you're saying, but it seems to me we have got far too 'safety conscious' these days, not just within the caching community, and 'Health and Safety' is having far too much of an impact on what we are, and are not, allowed to do.

 

True, someone could decide that the middle of the busy road was a good place to set up a table and chairs and have a picnic. It's just that if they did they wouldn't be doing it under the umbrella of an organised activity.

 

I utterly despise most of what modern day bureaucracy is about but have to say in a situation like this it makes at least some sense. The average person crossing the road will watch for traffic, cross to the centre, then repeat to cross the other carriageway. The average person isn't going to spend any time studying the crash barrier in detail, potentially leaving parts protruding into the carriageway and potentially blissfully unaware of the approaching traffic having to swerve because they're stuck out into the road.

 

I have no time for the "if it saves one life it's worth it" when "it" refers to untold and uncontrolled spending on something of dubious merit. At the same time it seems daft to put a cache in a location that has a high probability of causing needless distraction to fast traffic when it seems it could easily be moved elsewhere.

Link to comment

Dont bother arguing with the 'reviewers' - they publish and archive with free will.

 

I too have had caches published and then archived because the 'reviewer' did not understand the cache, did not read the cache description correct and then decided to archive the cache.

 

They do not apologise or retract their wrong doings. It is futile and wasting your time. Simply archive all your caches so you dont have to deal with them again, that is my opinion.

 

Red Duster states

"It now appears that innocent drivers are being put at risk by people in the central reservation and they have been taking avoiding action" - Have they reported this to him directly? How did they reach him? He once archived a cache as he had been "told by police that the cache was illegal" - When I requested from him the PCs badge number and station so I could contact them directly to discuss, this information was all of a sudden 'not available'

 

Have find finding caches that others place but dont put any more of your own out, its simply not worth the hassle.

Please do not argue with reviewers (it's not fun for either side), but if you disagree with a decision you are free to contact Groundspeak with the GC code via the appeals email address appeals@Groundspeak.com. from experience there is a real chance of your appeal being upheld

 

I have said sorry, unarchived caches and retracted actions on a number of occasions, sounds like you are just unaware of these instances.

 

The logs are on this cache tell the story. Drivers have been shouting and using their horn which is an avoiding action.

 

In the instance of your cache, I was told that a cacher was approached by a Police Officer and was informed they could be fined for being there. Instead of arguing with the PC, they did the right things and moving away from the location. The cacher did not get the PC's number so I do not have this information to provide to you. You however did state that a member of your family owned the item the cache was placed on. I asked you for proof of this and I am still waiting. When I receive this proof I will publish a cache of yours in this location. :)

 

Andy

Red Duster

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

Link to comment

I've always been in two minds about this cache: I've visited similar caches before and not had any cause for concern about my safety or that of motorists; however, I do recognise the issue that the reviewers have raised. I've based my thoughts so far on previous experience and Street View: I decided that the only way I'd be able to resolve my own dilemma - whether or not it made any difference to the future of the cache - was to visit it so this morning I set off for Berkhamsted, a place I haven't cached in for many years.

 

I had three objectives:


  •  
  • to see what the visibility and signage is like for motorists
  • how easy the cache is to find
  • whether motorists were concerned by my presence
     

Before visiting the cache I wanted to see the approach from the motorist's point of view. I joined the A41 at the M25 and drove west to the Tring junction where I turned around and took the A41 back to the A416 where I turned off and parked in Shooters Way around N51°45.862 W000°36.173 as this seemed to be the closest sensible parking to the cache. The time was around 08:50, the weather was dry but the road surface was damp from overnight rain and condensation. There was some mist, especially near the Ridgeway bridge though visibility was good: always at least 500 yards and often much more. The road itself is just as I remembered and as it appears on Street View: a four-lane clearway dual carriageway with a 70mph limit, no hard shoulder, short slip roads, some right-angle junctions and some parking laybys. The road is open to cycles - there are signs warning of the cycle routes around the junctions - and there is no restriction on pedestrians. There's no pavement but there is a grassy path at the side of each carriageway. The central reservation varies in width from a couple of yards to about ten yards. There is a barrier for each carriageway but both are fixed to the same posts. At the crossing points the northbound barriers end about ten yards after they've overlapped the southbound barriers. The section of road between the "Pedestrians crossing" signs is almost dead straight. Visibility is reduced by the changes in elevation of the road but I was always able to see several hundred yards ahead to where I knew the next crossing point was. I felt that if there were pedestrians crossing, waiting to cross, or loitering in the central reservation I would have been able to see them and unless they were behaving erratically they wouldn't have caused me any concern. The "Pedestrians crossing" sign which should be in the central reservation around N51°46.237 W000°36.716 is missing.

 

Having parked I walked along the track parallel to the north side of the A41. This is marked on maps as an "Other route with public access"; on the ground it's signed as a bridleway. While walking I observed that traffic was frequent but I wouldn't describe the road as being busy. Near the A41 crossing point the bridleway is crossed by the footpath which has a stile then steps down to the road. I paused at the top of the steps to remove my rucksack and don my hi-vis jacket (this was for my protection). After waiting for a gap in the traffic I crossed to the central reservation. I'd already read the hint so I knew where to look for the cache and it was in my hand within seconds of arriving. I extracted the log, signed it, and replaced the cache. While doing this I observed the passing motorists on each carriageway: none paid any attention to me. I crossed back to the north side of the road, removed my hi-vis jacket, put my racksack on my back and picked up my hiking pole. I now wanted to see what the visibility was like when crossing the road so I crossed to the south side then back to the north side. The road at this point is near the top of a rise and visibility for both pedestrians and motorists is excellent. I observed no negative behaviour from passing motorists while I was waiting to cross or when crossing. I then walked back to the car and thought that that was as much information as I could obtain.

 

However, I'd planned to visit some nearby caches and while walking the Rossway series I happened to notice the "Pedestrians crossing" signs near GC3QYEG and at GC3QYEQ I found that I was at one of the crossings. I therefore took the opportunity to enhance my research by crossing the A41 (twice, as I wanted to continue the Rossway series). At GC3QYFF I repeated the exercise. Visibility is good at both crossings and each time in the central reservation I feigned searching for a cache to the extent I knew was required to find GC3Q8J1. I had now used three of the four crossings in this section and had crossed the road six and a half times. At no point did I feel unsafe and no passing motorist expressed any concern by sounding horn, flashing lights, or changing lanes.

 

I have visited roadside caches where I feared for my own safety and where it was obvious that passing motorists were also concerned. Such problems usually occurred on fast single carriageways with no pavement and where a motorist would not expect a pedestrian to be. This cache is at a dedicated, signed, and visible crossing point and I don't believe there's any reason why it shouldn't remain, provided that cachers choose their time wisely (a weekday rush hour would mean waiting a long time to cross the road) and behave responsibly when crossing the road and finding and logging the cache.

 

I doubt that this post will have any bearing on whether the cache remains or not, as I believe that decision was made several months ago, but my research and experience has satisfied me that there is no cause for concern.

Link to comment

I am relatively new to the sport and wanted to do a few caches on my home tonight. I had heard that this was an unusual cache and whilst nobody had favourited it I decided to investigate myself.

Before visiting the cache I wanted to see the approach from the motorist's point of view. I joined the A41 at the M25 and drove west to the Tring junction where I turned around and took the A41 back to the A416 where I turned off and parked in Shooters Way around N51°45.862 W000°36.173 as this seemed to be the closest sensible parking to the cache. The time was around 4pm on a winters evening, the weather was wet and the road surface was damp from the rain and condensation. There was some mist, especially near the Ridgeway bridge and visibility was poor: less than 200 yards and sometimes much less. The road itself is just as I remembered and as it appears on Street View: a four-lane clearway dual carriageway with a 70mph limit, no hard shoulder, short slip roads, some right-angle junctions and some parking laybys. The road is open to cycles - there are signs warning of the cycle routes around the junctions - and there is no restriction on pedestrians. There's no pavement but there is a grassy path at the side of each carriageway. The central reservation varies in width from a couple of yards to about ten yards. There is a barrier for each carriageway but both are fixed to the same posts. At the crossing points the northbound barriers end about ten yards after they've overlapped the southbound barriers. The section of road between the "Pedestrians crossing" signs is almost dead straight. Visibility is reduced by the changes in elevation of the road but I was always able to see several hundred yards ahead to where I knew the next crossing point was. I felt that if there were pedestrians crossing, waiting to cross, or loitering in the central reservation I would have been able to see them and would have only been distracted by them if they were behaving erratically by kneeling in the central reservation, looking for something in the barrier or signing a log book from a hidden container . The "Pedestrians crossing" sign which should be in the central reservation around N51°46.237 W000°36.716 is missing which is of further concern.

 

Having parked I walked along the track parallel to the north side of the A41. This is marked on maps as an "Other route with public access"; on the ground it's signed as a bridleway. While walking I observed that traffic was frequent and busy with quite a bit of spray. Near the A41 crossing point the bridleway is crossed by the footpath which has a stile then steps down to the road. I paused at the top of the steps to remove my rucksack I didn’t have a hi-vis jacket (and should have spent circa £10 for my own protection). After waiting an eternity for a gap in the traffic I crossed to the central reservation. I didn’t read the hint so I wasn’t sure where to look for the cache and it was a few minutes of peering, kneeling and walking up and down checking my phone before the cache was in my hand. I extracted the log, signed it, and then went and dropped the cache and had to retrieve it again from under the barrier. While doing this I observed the passing motorists on each carriageway: many looked over and rubber-knecked my erratic behaviour. At this point I did feel unsafe and one passing motorist expressed concern by sounding his horn. I hadn’t appreciated that the visibility had started to get somewhat worse and as he turned to watch my reaction he veered slightly in to the other lane. The lorry in that lane also had to take evasive action and there was a horrible breaking screech and skidding sound as they reacted to each other. Luckily there was no collision but a police car coming down the carriageway pulled over to the verge and the officer called over to ask what I had been doing on the central reservation. I thought quickly and said ‘ just crossing on the footpath’ . He pointed out that he had been travelling down the other carriageway and had witnessed me searching the central reservation and wanted to know why.

At this point I asked myself why I felt the need to search for this cache in the middle of a dual carriageway and exactly what benefit I was achieving being here. I admitted to the policeman that I was looking for a Geocache that had permission to be placed there. The policeman then advised me that no such permission was held and they were well aware of this hobby and would be contacting the listing site direct.

 

I have visited roadside caches where I feared for my own safety and where it was obvious that passing motorists were also concerned. Such problems usually occurred on fast single carriageways with no pavement and where a motorist would not expect a pedestrian to be. This cache is not quite the same but still poses similar hazards.

Please archive this listing as there is no reason to risk a serious incident that could bring this hobby into disrepute.

Link to comment

It's really sad when people are unable to present their own argument so resort to first creating a sock puppet - which I thought was against forum rules - and then performing wholesale copying of another's post without crediting it by correct quoting.

 

If we've reached that stage in the debate then perhaps it's time to close the thread.

Link to comment

It's really sad when people are unable to present their own argument so resort to first creating a sock puppet - which I thought was against forum rules - and then performing wholesale copying of another's post without crediting it by correct quoting.

 

If we've reached that stage in the debate then perhaps it's time to close the thread.

I've disagreed with some things Alan has written in the past, but I'm %100 in agreement on this.

 

IMO if Equaliser isn't prepared to say it under their own name and has to create a Sock Puppet account then their opinion has no value.

Link to comment

It's really sad when people are unable to present their own argument so resort to first creating a sock puppet - which I thought was against forum rules - and then performing wholesale copying of another's post without crediting it by correct quoting.

 

If we've reached that stage in the debate then perhaps it's time to close the thread.

I've disagreed with some things Alan has written in the past, but I'm %100 in agreement on this.

 

IMO if Equaliser isn't prepared to say it under their own name and has to create a Sock Puppet account then their opinion has no value.

And unlike Alan's post, what he/she wrote was fiction anyway.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

I am sorry this post seems to have caused some sort of ethical upset but it was purely designed to highlight that different people caching, under different conditions, with different levels of experience could have a problem with this cache and similar caches like it. It is completely legitimate scenario for a new/inexperienced cacher and any reviewer has to take this into account when asessing a whole range of possibilities.

Link to comment

I am sorry this post seems to have caused some sort of ethical upset but it was purely designed to highlight that different people caching, under different conditions, with different levels of experience could have a problem with this cache and similar caches like it. It is completely legitimate scenario for a new/inexperienced cacher and any reviewer has to take this into account when asessing a whole range of possibilities.

Purely designed or poorly designed?

Link to comment

I am sorry this post seems to have caused some sort of ethical upset but it was purely designed to highlight that different people caching, under different conditions, with different levels of experience could have a problem with this cache and similar caches like it. It is completely legitimate scenario for a new/inexperienced cacher and any reviewer has to take this into account when asessing a whole range of possibilities.

 

The point is it was made up and a clear ripoff of what at least sounds like the results of a real visit to the site and real observations.

 

If you're so convinced that it's a valid scenario for a less experienced cacher why not post it under a real name?

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...
×
×
  • Create New...