Jump to content

Cache reviewed OK - Now Disabled by Reviewer..


Bozoid
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

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

 

I no longer place caches and will continue with this stance until the reviewers that I took exception to move on to pastures new. No big drama to me.

Link to comment
It now appears that innocent drivers are being put at risk by people in the central reservation and they have been taking avoiding action.

My apologies: I seem to have missed this very important post while I was deciding what I thought of the location. firestars recent quote caused me to look again.

 

Of the 22 finds:

"only got hooted once"

"felt I was distracting the traffic."

"shouted at by a passing lorry driver"

"a lorry beeped at her"

"Beeped at by passing drivers"

So four teams (see below) received a negative response from passing motorists. What we don't know is the circumstances at the time. Was it rush hour or was the road unusually busy? What day and time of day was it? What was the visibility? We also don't know how the cachers were behaving. How many were searching? A group in the central reservation is much likely to attract negative attention than an individual. How did they search? Reponsible behaviour is required at a spot like this, whether caching or not. Where did they log the cache? It may be safer to take the cache to the side of the road rather than log it in the central reservation.

 

The third and fourth quote above seem to be the same team and my inference is that the reaction occurred when crossing the road not when at the cache. Perhaps the cacher or lorry driver misjudged the distance and speed?

 

We need to bear in mind that sounding the horn isn't a negative thing. The only valid legal reason for sounding the horn is to warn other road users that you're there. An approaching motorist, observing pedestrians, may well sound the horn as a warning. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's annoyed by your presence, and indeed it would be illegal to sound the horn in an aggressive manner or because he didn't agree with you crossing the road.

 

Then there are the positive comments:

"Luckily the road was pretty quiet so it was easy to get to GZ. Wouldn't have wanted to try this in the rush hour. A short search revealed the cache"

"Found the cache is a relativley safe place"

"none of the passing cars took the slightest bit of notice of me"

"Easy find."

"Quickly spotted"

"fairly quick find"

"not many cars around so I had no problem finding the cache"

"Pick the right moment for cachers and cars alike and it's a safe and easy find"

"an easy, safe find"

 

I'm disturbed by this log:

"had fun doing this one especially taking the mick running across the road with my arms and hands in the air like a headless chicken"

This behaviour would obviously be of great concern to any motorist. Irresponsible caching should be discouraged no matter where it occurs.

 

The message I take from the logs is: behave responsibly and the cache is a quick, safe, easy find. There is no evidence that "drivers are being put at risk" or "they have been taking avoiding action". Of course, there may be information which isn't in the logs but I can only comment on what I can see.

 

With hindsight I would not have published it

I think we need to know the reasons why. I can understand why you question the placement after receiving negative comments but I can't see why you would decline to publish it without that information, especially as there are other similar caches about which your colleagues were, and are, unconcerned.

Edited by Alan White
Link to comment

I'm getting bored by this thread. I'd prefer some nice pics on that one. ;)

Please sort this out asap.

1. I'd like the reviewer to have the courage of GC's convictions. (I doubt it)

2. I would trust The White's post on the cache page. Experience matters.

3. Firestars has his own agenda. -_-

4. If I'm in the area I'll give it a go.

5. Actually Walking ALONG roads to get to caches is surely MORE dangerous than crossing them.

6. I suspect the cache will last. :rolleyes:

7. IF ANYONE should ask me what I'm up to. The answer is always "looking for truffles" :laughing:

Edited by JoLuc
Link to comment

I have a cache very similar to this which I bet a lot of folks in this forum did on their way to the Perth Mega, I don't think there has ever been a complaint about my cache!!

 

If you feel the cache is not safe to do then don't do it ... common sense is actually quite rare these days :ph34r:

 

My metal knickers are out of the washer but in the dryer so don't shout at me :anicute:

 

M :D

Link to comment
1355160297[/url]' post='5168058']

I have a cache very similar to this which I bet a lot of folks in this forum did on their way to the Perth Mega, I don't think there has ever been a complaint about my cache!!

 

If you feel the cache is not safe to do then don't do it ... common sense is actually quite rare these days :ph34r:

 

My metal knickers are out of the washer but in the dryer so don't shout at me :anicute:

 

M :D

 

It has to be said, you're now more famous for your elusive knickers than your caches though Betty.... blink.gif

Jonovich.

Link to comment
1355160297[/url]' post='5168058']

I have a cache very similar to this which I bet a lot of folks in this forum did on their way to the Perth Mega, I don't think there has ever been a complaint about my cache!!

 

If you feel the cache is not safe to do then don't do it ... common sense is actually quite rare these days :ph34r:

 

My metal knickers are out of the washer but in the dryer so don't shout at me :anicute:

 

M :D

 

It has to be said, you're now more famous for your elusive knickers than your caches though Betty.... blink.gif

Jonovich.

 

Well if folks are talking about my knickers Billy-Bob they are leaving my caches alone ;)

 

M :D

Edited by Us 4 and Jess
Link to comment

Well this is an interesting thread.

 

Kudos to Alan White for actually making the effort to travel to do this cache for himself before commenting. (Like others, I am not convinced that the account by Equalizer is entirely factual, but I don't really wish to get into that whole sock puppet debate).

 

This cache is not far from me, but when it was published, I had no desire at all to go and do it. I still don't, and missed it out when I was caching very close by. This is just like another similar cache in the area, which I also didn't fancy going to do. This latter cache is hidden in the exact same way and has been going since September 2008 and the reviewers have not chosen to disable that one.

 

As "Frogger" was published and has only latterly been disabled by the reviewer, does that mean that any similar cache should be thus disabled? I can understand a policy decision not to publish a cache or certain type of cache, but not one to retrospectively and seemingly arbitarily, disable one cache and not another. If a cache set on a public footpath gets zapped because it is deemed that it is too dangerous, does that mean that similar value judgements about cacher safety will be made about caches in other publicly accessible areas (caches on tidal islands where there is a danger of being cut off by the tide, caches on cliff top paths, caches in city locations where there is discarded drug paraphernalia nearby, etc). Caching aside, this is a public footpath that anybody is permitted to use to cross the dual carriageway. The local council have decided that it's safe to cross the road on foot at this point.

 

I know that just because one cache got published, the reviewers state that this does not create a precedent that means that a similar cache would and should automatically be published, but it is surely understandable that a cache setter would ask why their cache was not published and not unreasonable to expect a transparent answer.

 

It is true that our reviewers are volunteers, and therefore I am not going to have a go at Red Duster. I will do him the courtesy of assuming that he sets about his task of publishing caches with an open mind and makes what he believes are the best decisions in the circumstances. What I really want to know is this: is there an official reviewers policy to reject caches such as this? It would surely be possible to create a rule/guideline (even if just for the UK) which said no caches to be placed in the middle of dual carriageways in the same way that no caches are to be placed within dry stone walls. If this is applied retrospectively, then all such caches should be archived. If existing caches are grandfathered in and the policy only applies to new caches, then "Frogger" should stand, because it has already been published.

 

It is still a cache that I will not be bothering to do any time in the near future, or if it gets archived. should I say 'a style of cache' that I will not be bothering to do any time in the near future?

Link to comment

I’ve been meaning to put forward my humble opinion on this for a while. Firstly I’ll own up to a couple of things. 1) I know the CO. I think he’s a top bloke with wicked sense of humour. 2) I’m not what most people on here would consider an “experienced” cacher, but I do have a brain and take responsibility for my own actions and the effect they have on others.

 

So, Frogger..!. An interesting idea but obviously not something for every cacher. I have done it and I must say that personally, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but like anything else in life you have to be sensible.

 

It is on a road which can be busy at times but in an area with great visibility both for cacher and motorist alike. Like most roads it gets busy during rush hour so it would be sensible to do as we did and find it out of rush hour. We actually did it, along with another couple, at about 11pm at night by torchlight , wearing high-vis vests and using small torches (which we were very careful NOT to point in the direction of the traffic). It took less than 5 minutes including waiting for quiet spot in the traffic, was a QEF and for us, a lot of fun. There is not big box to sit and rifle through so a quick sign of the log and off we went again.

 

Personally, I felt much safer than I have done retrieving a number of caches that were placed on the side of single track lanes and I also think it safer for vehicles in the same location. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to dive into a hedge or ditch to avoid an oncoming car on a country road where there is no segregation of foot and vehicular traffic, no protection for the pedestrian or signage to make traffic aware of the potential presence of the same.

 

However, there are a couple of things that I think that the CO should consider. The first is to change the rating of this entry; it is by no means a difficult cache to find and the terrain is not particularly challenging. Many of us cross similar roads on a daily basis and do not have any problems doing so. I would suggest that a rating more along the lines of D1.5/T2.5 (or even lower) would more sensibly reflect the actual nature of this hide and I question whether the D/T rating given may have contributed to Frogger…! being brought to the attention of Red Duster (a guy who incidentally I’ve always found to be quite helpful and reasonable) in the first place?

 

Added to this I think the description should make it clear what the potential finder is getting themselves into and ask them to respect the nature of the environment it is placed in i.e. not act like a twit. Forewarned is forearmed as they say and this would enable people to make an easy, informed decision as to whether to attempt the cache or not. Each of us make countless decisions like this on a daily basis so why can’t we do the same whilst out hunting Tupperware? Perhaps if these two suggestions were taken on board it may be possible to reinstate the cache with no hard feelings on either side?

Link to comment
stuff you did..

 

Quick question : Is it possible that lets say two cachers were kneeling/bending down in the area trying to find the cache, who then upon finding it both stood up and emerged from below the barrier hight, could scare the crap out of a passing driver who was previously unaware of their presence as they were hidden 1 second before??

Link to comment
stuff you did..

 

Quick question : Is it possible that lets say two cachers were kneeling/bending down in the area trying to find the cache, who then upon finding it both stood up and emerged from below the barrier hight, could scare the crap out of a passing driver who was previously unaware of their presence as they were hidden 1 second before??

 

I would think it highly unlikely at this particular location

Link to comment

Anything's possible ... but I'm lost at what point you're trying to make.

 

Went to a job once where someone jumped from a bridge onto a road in front of a motorist, scared the cr** out of her too, maybe pedestrians should be banned from bridges that cross roads :rolleyes:

No... They just need to be banned from jumping from bridges on to roads. Or sectioned!

Link to comment

A view of the crossing, showing steps down and the refuge between the barriers.

Frogger002.jpg

 

No, Googlemaps isn't accurate with the cache position, and there aren't really a pair of opposing chevrons on the overtaking lane

 

This is a very useful angle. Look how narrow the central median is. Look how close the traffic is to people in this area. See how distracting it could be for a motorist to see someone searching for something in this area.

Link to comment

I have a cache very similar to this which I bet a lot of folks in this forum did on their way to the Perth Mega, I don't think there has ever been a complaint about my cache!!

 

If you feel the cache is not safe to do then don't do it ... common sense is actually quite rare these days :ph34r:

 

My metal knickers are out of the washer but in the dryer so don't shout at me :anicute:

 

M :D

 

I think many people feel the cache is not safe and would never consider doing it. The point is that they would prefer that nobody else does it because it only takes one occasion where a driver is distracted and the consequences could be disasterous and seriously affect the integrity of geocaching.

 

PS - did you get permission from the Highways agency for your cache?

Link to comment

Fresh perspective: For comparative purposes.

 

Very interesting and very scary. Anybody who followed the thread regading the death of a German Geocacher last year will no doubt cringe at this cache. It would appear that other Western European countries have a completely different ethos when setting some caches and permission for placement just doesn't come into it. Whilst I don't condone this sort of extreme caching at least it would appear that the only people they are putting in danger are themselves. My concern with the cache in this thread is that it may affect innocent motorists.

Link to comment

 

This is a very useful angle. Look how narrow the central median is. Look how close the traffic is to people in this area. See how distracting it could be for a motorist to see someone searching for something in this area.

Strange, I wouldn't say it was that narrow, quite wide considering it's just a footpath. Also, considering the signs warning of pedestrian crossings, it just shows how visible people in the central reserve would be to approaching motorists.

Link to comment

 

This is a very useful angle. Look how narrow the central median is. Look how close the traffic is to people in this area. See how distracting it could be for a motorist to see someone searching for something in this area.

Strange, I wouldn't say it was that narrow, quite wide considering it's just a footpath. Also, considering the signs warning of pedestrian crossings, it just shows how visible people in the central reserve would be to approaching motorists.

 

It isn't 'just a footpath' though. It's also the central reservation of a dual carriageway.

The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger by being the distraction to the motorists.

 

It would appear that it does not have permission from the correct authority (I assume the Highways agency) to be there so the cache should not be there.

 

The reviewer has suggested that the cache can be placed away from the carriageway which will still allow any visitors to the cache to walk over to the central reservation of their own volition if this is the experience they wish to achieve.

Link to comment

 

This is a very useful angle. Look how narrow the central median is. Look how close the traffic is to people in this area. See how distracting it could be for a motorist to see someone searching for something in this area.

Strange, I wouldn't say it was that narrow, quite wide considering it's just a footpath. Also, considering the signs warning of pedestrian crossings, it just shows how visible people in the central reserve would be to approaching motorists.

 

It isn't 'just a footpath' though. It's also the central reservation of a dual carriageway.

The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger by being the distraction to the motorists.

 

It would appear that it does not have permission from the correct authority (I assume the Highways agency) to be there so the cache should not be there.

 

The reviewer has suggested that the cache can be placed away from the carriageway which will still allow any visitors to the cache to walk over to the central reservation of their own volition if this is the experience they wish to achieve.

 

As I said...A footpath, which has double thickness barriers either side, providing a refuge within the central reserve. Remember, the footpath was there first, that is why it is still there.

You've totally lost me saying "The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger". It is obvious that those people who want this cache archived cannot form a coherent arguement between them. You obviously want pedestrians to be visible, but not visible. This is a pedestrian refuge, which means it is where pedestrians are allowed / supposed to be, and motorists are warned of their possible presence.

Frogger003.jpg

Edited by The Bongtwashes
Link to comment

 

This is a very useful angle. Look how narrow the central median is. Look how close the traffic is to people in this area. See how distracting it could be for a motorist to see someone searching for something in this area.

Strange, I wouldn't say it was that narrow, quite wide considering it's just a footpath. Also, considering the signs warning of pedestrian crossings, it just shows how visible people in the central reserve would be to approaching motorists.

 

It isn't 'just a footpath' though. It's also the central reservation of a dual carriageway.

The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger by being the distraction to the motorists.

 

It would appear that it does not have permission from the correct authority (I assume the Highways agency) to be there so the cache should not be there.

 

The reviewer has suggested that the cache can be placed away from the carriageway which will still allow any visitors to the cache to walk over to the central reservation of their own volition if this is the experience they wish to achieve.

 

As I said...A footpath, which has double thickness barriers either side, providing a refuge within the central reserve. Remember, the footpath was there first, that is why it is still there.

You've totally lost me saying "The fact that cachers looking for a cache in the central reservation are so visible actually adds to the danger". It is obvious that those people who want this cache archived cannot form a coherent arguement between them. You obviously want pedestrians to be visible, but not visible. This is a pedestrian refuge, which means it is where pedestrians are allowed / supposed to be, and motorists are warned of their possible presence.

Frogger003.jpg

 

No need to get snippy. I will try and explain my point a little more coherently.

 

In my opinion it is not a great idea to cross any dual carriageway. However, as has been quite rightly pointed out earlier in the thread, the footpath no doubt came first and in most conditions people who find it necessary to take this path will do so safely at their own risk. Pedestrians occasionally completing this manouvre will create a risk that a motorist may be distracted but I accept that the chance of an incident occuring is low enough to be acceptable.

 

Now, if we then introduce a cache into the central reservation we then create an increase in the level of footflow and add an extra dimension of activity right next to the overtaking lane of the carriageway. We now have people probably with a GPS in their hands, leaning round the barrier, possibly kneeling and searching for something. In my opinion this creates an additional distraction to motorists travelling at high speed which I do not feel is acceptable. It is the fact that they are so visible doing something unusual which causes the additional and increased distraction.

 

Now if we then have cachers who then search for the cache in poor visibility, poor weather or even at night then this increases the problem for motorists even further. Yes, some cachers have done the cache in the dark with torches however it would appear they may have deleted their log and re-posted another one to defer any controversy.

 

I apologise if my opinion is contrary to others but we are all different. I actually pray that you are right and at no time in the future any RTA is caused by cachers in the middle of any dual carriageway. I do not blame reviewers for not wanting to take this risk (no matter how small) and I feel Deceangis earlier post excellently sums up this view.

 

(PS - Don't forget... it doesn't have permission and you seem to be side stepping that issue)

Edited by Legochugglers
Link to comment

Good god -

 

I didn't think that this would be the thread my first post ended up being in, but the idea that a cache would be put smack in the middle of an interstate is just poor judgement on the part of the cache owner, no matter how much due warning they give the geocachers. I am in agreement that the reviewer did the proper thing by disabling it.

Link to comment

I’m sorry but I remain completely unmoved by any of the Pro-placement posts I have read.

 

Imagine if you will -

You haven't heard of Geocaching and have no idea that such a hobby exists.

You are driving down this road minding your own business.

Please be completely honest here.... would you or would you not engage in a certain amount of 'rubber-necking' from your car window if you saw a person/persons bending/stooping/feeling/crouching around the central barrier of this road?

I’m reasonably confident that the honest answer for most people would be ‘yes’.

The possible fallout from this action has already been mentioned countless times so I won’t sport with your patience.

Link to comment

I’m sorry but I remain completely unmoved by any of the Pro-placement posts I have read.

 

Imagine if you will -

You haven't heard of Geocaching and have no idea that such a hobby exists.

You are driving down this road minding your own business.

Please be completely honest here.... would you or would you not engage in a certain amount of 'rubber-necking' from your car window if you saw a person/persons bending/stooping/feeling/crouching around the central barrier of this road?

I’m reasonably confident that the honest answer for most people would be ‘yes’.

The possible fallout from this action has already been mentioned countless times so I won’t sport with your patience.

 

 

But you could make that same argument about any cache beside any road too, so how far must caches be from the side of a road in your world?

 

and the honest answer is "No", they're behind a barrier so not a danger so of no interest to me, as opposed to driving through an urban area where any pedestrian on a footpath could potentially step out into the road.

Link to comment

I’m sorry but I remain completely unmoved by any of the Pro-placement posts I have read.

 

Imagine if you will -

You haven't heard of Geocaching and have no idea that such a hobby exists.

You are driving down this road minding your own business.

Please be completely honest here.... would you or would you not engage in a certain amount of 'rubber-necking' from your car window if you saw a person/persons bending/stooping/feeling/crouching around the central barrier of this road?

I’m reasonably confident that the honest answer for most people would be ‘yes’.

The possible fallout from this action has already been mentioned countless times so I won’t sport with your patience.

 

 

But you could make that same argument about any cache beside any road too, so how far must caches be from the side of a road in your world?

 

and the honest answer is "No", they're behind a barrier so not a danger so of no interest to me, as opposed to driving through an urban area where any pedestrian on a footpath could potentially step out into the road.

This cache isn't 'beside' a road. It is in the middle of 4 lanes of fast moving traffic. Just because the pedestrians are behind a barrier, doesn't automatically mean they are of no danger to you and I think it would be unwise to assume so. I have to accept your point that you think this behavior would not lead you to taking a longer look than you perhaps should however.

Link to comment

 

This cache isn't 'beside' a road.

 

But my point is that the scenario you posed above also applies equally to a cache placed beside a road as much as it does to a cache in the central reservation, so do we take it that you also think caches beside a road should not be allowed for the same reasons? and if so how far away from the roads must caches be?

Link to comment

I’m sorry but I remain completely unmoved by any of the Pro-placement posts I have read.

 

Imagine if you will -

You haven't heard of Geocaching and have no idea that such a hobby exists.

You are driving down this road minding your own business.

Please be completely honest here.... would you or would you not engage in a certain amount of 'rubber-necking' from your car window if you saw a person/persons bending/stooping/feeling/crouching around the central barrier of this road?

I’m reasonably confident that the honest answer for most people would be ‘yes’.

The possible fallout from this action has already been mentioned countless times so I won’t sport with your patience.

 

 

But you could make that same argument about any cache beside any road too, so how far must caches be from the side of a road in your world?

 

and the honest answer is "No", they're behind a barrier so not a danger so of no interest to me, as opposed to driving through an urban area where any pedestrian on a footpath could potentially step out into the road.

 

Someone parked in a layby and apparently ducking behind a barrier is a different matter - if I saw someone like that and didn't know about geocaching I'd assume they had stopped to take a leak or something.

 

If a driver who doesn't know about geocaching sees someone fumbling around in the central reservation what are they supposed to think? The "unusual behaviour" rating is off the scale, if someone has ducked right down and suddenly stands up that's so far outside normal behaviour (based on what any driver can reasonably expect to happen on the central reservation) an approaching driver could easily be concerned that the person passed out for some reason and so could lurch into the road without warning.

 

If retrieving a cache required parking and walking a significant distance along a dual carriageway I'd support that being archived as well. It comes back to the idea that just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Link to comment

Good god -

 

I didn't think that this would be the thread my first post ended up being in, but the idea that a cache would be put smack in the middle of an interstate is just poor judgement on the part of the cache owner, no matter how much due warning they give the geocachers. I am in agreement that the reviewer did the proper thing by disabling it.

 

This isn't an interstate, it's a British trunk road. It has different regulations governing it. In my opinion it cannot be compared to the interstate highways I've driven on.

 

I’m sorry but I remain completely unmoved by any of the Pro-placement posts I have read.

 

Imagine if you will -

You haven't heard of Geocaching and have no idea that such a hobby exists.

You are driving down this road minding your own business.

Please be completely honest here.... would you or would you not engage in a certain amount of 'rubber-necking' from your car window if you saw a person/persons bending/stooping/feeling/crouching around the central barrier of this road?

I’m reasonably confident that the honest answer for most people would be ‘yes’.

The possible fallout from this action has already been mentioned countless times so I won’t sport with your patience.

 

My answer would be no. I would not be surprised to see pedestrians where I have already been warned that there might be pedestrians. If I saw them bend down etc. I would assume that they had dropped something and then...well by then they would be in my rear view mirror and beyond my concern. Mind you, I am one of those (few?) people who tends not to try to see what is happening on the opposite carriageway, I prefer to see what is happening on my carriageway, and avoiding the rubberneckers. Perhaps you take to great an interest in what is happening elsewhere? (Please be completely honest here)

 

 

Are we still talking about this?

 

Edit: if we're being technical, a cache in the central reservation is adjacent to twice as much 70mph-speed-limited dual carriageway as one placed at the edge, so it's at least twice as risky.

I disagree. The pedestrian in the central reserve has a barrier between him and the traffic in each direction. The pedestrian at the edge of the road is probably not behind any barrier, and is therefore more of a risk.

Link to comment

 

If retrieving a cache required parking and walking a significant distance along a dual carriageway I'd support that being archived as well.

 

And what about caches on a country lane, not wide enough for 2 cars to pass, no pavement, high hedges, blind bends - there's plenty of those around are they going to go too?

 

I guess that would depend on whether it can be retrieved without doing something silly.

 

On a country lane a driver should be ready for slow moving things in the road, be they pedestrians, cyclists, tractors, horse riders etc. On a dual carriageway it is less reasonable to expect people to be hunkered down out of sight behind the crash barrier.

Link to comment

 

If retrieving a cache required parking and walking a significant distance along a dual carriageway I'd support that being archived as well.

 

And what about caches on a country lane, not wide enough for 2 cars to pass, no pavement, high hedges, blind bends - there's plenty of those around are they going to go too?

 

I guess that would depend on whether it can be retrieved without doing something silly.

 

On a country lane a driver should be ready for slow moving things in the road, be they pedestrians, cyclists, tractors, horse riders etc. On a dual carriageway it is less reasonable to expect people to be hunkered down out of sight behind the crash barrier.

 

The name 'crash barrier' itself should be an indication that it's probably not a safe place to be hiding geocaching game pieces, I would think.

Link to comment

Are we still talking about this?

 

Edit: if we're being technical, a cache in the central reservation is adjacent to twice as much 70mph-speed-limited dual carriageway as one placed at the edge, so it's at least twice as risky.

I disagree. The pedestrian in the central reserve has a barrier between him and the traffic in each direction. The pedestrian at the edge of the road is probably not behind any barrier, and is therefore more of a risk.

 

As has been posted, crash barriers are designed to deform in the event something hits it at speed, so standing behind it with an opposing crash barrier just behind you is very risky.

Link to comment

 

As has been posted, crash barriers are designed to deform in the event something hits it at speed, so standing behind it with an opposing crash barrier just behind you is very risky.

 

Whilst that is correct, the risk of being squished between the two barriers is just a risk for the Geocacher themselves. We cache at our own risk, we should object to anyone else telling us what risks we can and cannot take with our own well beings. It is not reason enough for a cache to be disabled by a reviewer.

 

However, the question in this case is if the placement of the cache is likely to put others at risk or simply to cause alarm to them. The same way that caches likely to cause a bomb scare are not a very clever idea. You could argue that this cache could actually fall into that bomb scare category, before even opening the argument that it may distract a driver and contribute to an incident.

 

Sergei Jonovich

Link to comment

I quite honestly can't believe that this thread has run for so long.

We are talking about a, in my opinion. poorly thought out cache hide which although there are dozens more poorly thought out caches like it all over the country a reviewer has decided to stand firm on this one.

I have no problem with the reviewer's actions and only wish that some others would take the same stance where caches, that are not extreme 5/5, put people at risk. A cache that encourages finders to cross a safety fence springs to mind yet finders think there is no danger in that (Read some of the logs)

I think that if you feel a cache is unsafe to find IGNORE it and if the find rate drops on them then the owners may think again.

Link to comment

I quite honestly can't believe that this thread has run for so long.

We are talking about a, in my opinion. poorly thought out cache hide which although there are dozens more poorly thought out caches like it all over the country a reviewer has decided to stand firm on this one.

I have no problem with the reviewer's actions and only wish that some others would take the same stance where caches, that are not extreme 5/5, put people at risk. A cache that encourages finders to cross a safety fence springs to mind yet finders think there is no danger in that (Read some of the logs)

I think that if you feel a cache is unsafe to find IGNORE it and if the find rate drops on them then the owners may think again.

 

I think that the fundamental problem is not so much that it puts geocachers at risk, but that it puts innocent bystanders at risk. And that reason alone, in my opinion - the fact that people not involved whatsoever are jeopardized - is justifiable grounds to shut it down.

Edited by Torchwood Four
Link to comment

 

...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...

 

Andy

Red Duster

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

I wish you were our reviewer :unsure:

Link to comment

As we already know, the central reservation was specifically designed to protect the public. It is legal, sane and fun to loiter twixt 4 lanes of fast moving traffic and 'play a game'. It’s imperative that we throw caution to the wind and keep caches of this nature alive for future generations of Geocachers to enjoy. To heck with the consequences, we should all be allowed to decide for ourselves eh? We will be invisible to all traffic and no one will be ‘interested’ in us as we search for this cache.

 

I’m planning an event cache here just after Christmas if anyone is up for it.

 

For me, this thread has run its course and is now going round in circles. I am hugely content with my contribution and despite several eloquent and well expressed arguments, my feelings on this placement remain unchanged. The community is clearly divided on the correct course for this cache and I guess only time will tell now.

Happy Christmas everyone :) .

Link to comment

For me, this thread has run its course and is now going round in circles. I am hugely content with my contribution and despite several eloquent and well expressed arguments, my feelings on this placement remain unchanged. The community is clearly divided on the correct course for this cache and I guess only time will tell now.

 

Agreed. Those that think the cache shouldn't be allowed will never get along with those who do. And what better way to celebrate the season of goodwill etc ;-)

Link to comment

Looks like a very silly place to hide a Geocache to me for many reasons not limited to danger to finders, danger to passing motorists and danger to the reputation of Geocaching in general.

 

It's not exactly a nice place to visit either is it? Where is the nice view or other point of interest for bringing people here.

 

The crossing will only still exist because of the absolutely minimal number of people (if any) using it, making it not worth the expense of providing a bridge, diverting the path elsewhere or going through the process to get it extinguished.

 

I'm glad the reviewer has decided it must go. Just proves common sense is not so common!

 

If the hider thinks this is a nice place for a cache I hope he is sufficiently cheesed off that he finds another hobby.

 

Philip

Link to comment

As we already know, the central reservation was specifically designed to protect the public. It is legal, sane and fun to loiter twixt 4 lanes of fast moving traffic and 'play a game'.

 

Apologies if I've missed the irony in your post - but no, it's not legal.

 

When is it ever going to sink in - rights of way do NOT give anyone the right to play, picnic, sing songs or hide tupperware. You have the right to "pass and repass", nothing more. As this central reservation only exists as a bridging point on a right of way, the only activity permitted without specific permission of the landowner is to pass and repass!

Link to comment

As we already know, the central reservation was specifically designed to protect the public. It is legal, sane and fun to loiter twixt 4 lanes of fast moving traffic and 'play a game'.

 

Apologies if I've missed the irony in your post - but no, it's not legal.

 

When is it ever going to sink in - rights of way do NOT give anyone the right to play, picnic, sing songs or hide tupperware. You have the right to "pass and repass", nothing more. As this central reservation only exists as a bridging point on a right of way, the only activity permitted without specific permission of the landowner is to pass and repass!

 

Yes, you did miss the irony.

Legal - No

Sane - No

Fun - No

The whole post was 'tongue in cheek' keehotee. :)

Link to comment

 

If the hider thinks this is a nice place for a cache I hope he is sufficiently cheesed off that he finds another hobby.

 

Philip

 

Really Philip? You couldn't, y'know, just give his cache a miss? You'd much prefer that someone, who you don't know, gives up a hobby because the way they play it doesn't meet with the way you want to play it?

 

I've seen caches that I didn't want to go and find before. Do you know how I overcame this 'massive' problem? - I decided to ignore it and went and found a cache that I did want to find.

Edited by Lord_Blackadder
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 7
×
×
  • Create New...