Railroad question

[+narcissa]

I am trying to imagine what kind of sociopath would not feel a little responsible if a cacher was killed by a train at his/her cache.

[+Lil Devil]

The reviewer is not concerned with safety at all.

I'm sorry, but you've lost the thread of the conversation here. Of course the reviewer's concerned with safety. We're all concerned with safety. The point is that the reviewer isn't responsible for insuring anything about safety.

I can assure you that when I'm reviewing caches, I don't think about safety even a little bit. I simply ignore it.

 

Of course, when I'm reviewing, the player in me is looking over my shoulder and occasionally sees a dangerous cache and blurts out "Wow that looks dangerous! That's going on my To Do list!"

[+DanOCan]

I am trying to imagine what kind of sociopath would not feel a little responsible if a cacher was killed by a train at his/her cache.

It depends. If I did everything I could as a cache owner to provide proper information about how to safely and legally access my cache and someone decided to either ignore that information or not to check the cache page to even see it? I would feel bad that someone was killed while hunting for my cache but I certainly don't think I would feel responsible.

 

Here's an example from one of my most recent hides: Cochrane Pathways #1: Above the Bow

 

I don't really feel the area I placed the cache is dangerous, but I took no chances and made sure the cache description, the large photo, the attributes, even the cache name all reflect the slight possibility someone could stumble down the edge into the river.

 

Now if I intentionally placed a cache in a place that contained hidden dangers and decided not to warn people? If I didn't feel responsible in that case that would make me a sociopath, yes.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DanOCan

[+narcissa]

I am trying to imagine what kind of sociopath would not feel a little responsible if a cacher was killed by a train at his/her cache.

It depends. If I did everything I could as a cache owner to provide proper information about how to safely and legally access my cache and someone decided to either ignore that information or not to check the cache page to even see it? I would feel bad that someone was killed while hunting for my cache but I certainly don't think I would feel responsible.

 

Here's an example from one of my most recent hides: Cochrane Pathways #1: Above the Bow

 

I don't really feel the area I placed the cache is dangerous, but I took no chances and made sure the cache description, the large photo, the attributes, even the cache name all reflect the slight possibility someone could stumble down the edge into the river.

 

Now if I intentionally placed a cache in a place that contained hidden dangers and decided not to warn people? If I didn't feel responsible in that case that would make me a sociopath, yes.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at.

[Andronicus]

FTR: One of my TB's was a broken Nintendo DS with a hole drilled through it for the attachment cable. It was in a cacher's car in California, and got the cacher's car broken into, and was stolen. I do feel a little bad, so I dont't think I am a sociopath.

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

That said, all of my cachers do give detailed description of any dangers. It is just that I don't think that is nescesary. Infact, I was recently giving a little intro/training talk on geocaching. The first topic I covered is that each cacher is responsible for his/her own safety (and that of their children). The cache hider, geocaching.com, the provincial park, me etc. are not responsible for anyone elses safety.

[+narcissa]

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

What if you lacked adequate permission for placement, and that permission was denied by the land owner based on safety concerns? If you went ahead and placed the cache anyway, would you feel bad if someone was hurt?

[4wheelin_fool]

I am trying to imagine what kind of sociopath would not feel a little responsible if a cacher was killed by a train at his/her cache.

 

Feeling bad and feeling responsible are two completely different topics. A sociopath by definition would not feel bad, but they might feel responsible. By contrast someone who feels bad, may not feel responsible at all.

 

Years ago I was making a left turn on a street where the speed limit is 25. A kid, 19 years old with a bad hangover and driving an SUV without a seatbelt on, approaches from the other direction doing double the speed limit, flipping the truck over to narrowly avoid me. Now I feel really bad over what happened, but responsible? Although I was doing everything legal, I wish I could have changed something to stop it, but there was really no way to prevent it. Honestly however, if he had hit me and caused injuries, I would have probably wanted to kill him. He went into cardiac arrest after being partially ejected.

 

I've also noticed in other situations, that for some reason when people feel that someone else can be held partially responsible for their actions, it tends to make them lose the instinct for self preservation. Getting hit by a train isn't something that can happen very easily without some very basic loss of thought process.

Edited September 4, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[Andronicus]

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

What if you lacked adequate permission for placement, and that permission was denied by the land owner based on safety concerns? If you went ahead and placed the cache anyway, would you feel bad if someone was hurt?

That is a Straw Man attack. I am not going to answer that.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Andronicus

[+narcissa]

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

What if you lacked adequate permission for placement, and that permission was denied by the land owner based on safety concerns? If you went ahead and placed the cache anyway, would you feel bad if someone was hurt?

That is a Straw Man attack. I am not going to answer that.

 

It's not meant to be an attack, it's a hypothetical situation. I am not suggesting that you, personally, would do such a thing. I'm just suggesting that, at a certain point, there is a level of responsibility.

[Andronicus]

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

What if you lacked adequate permission for placement, and that permission was denied by the land owner based on safety concerns? If you went ahead and placed the cache anyway, would you feel bad if someone was hurt?

That is a Straw Man attack. I am not going to answer that.

 

It's not meant to be an attack, it's a hypothetical situation. I am not suggesting that you, personally, would do such a thing. I'm just suggesting that, at a certain point, there is a level of responsibility.

OK, so you will try to use the Slippery Slope fallacy instead?

 

Anyway, there may well be legal implications in the hypothetical situation you laid out. I do not pretend to know what they may be, and I would guess they would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

Permission aside, if I had mentioned that there are hidden dangers, I wouldn't feel guilty. Feel bad, sure.

[+narcissa]

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

What if you lacked adequate permission for placement, and that permission was denied by the land owner based on safety concerns? If you went ahead and placed the cache anyway, would you feel bad if someone was hurt?

That is a Straw Man attack. I am not going to answer that.

 

It's not meant to be an attack, it's a hypothetical situation. I am not suggesting that you, personally, would do such a thing. I'm just suggesting that, at a certain point, there is a level of responsibility.

OK, so you will try to use the Slippery Slope fallacy instead?

 

Anyway, there may well be legal implications in the hypothetical situation you laid out. I do not pretend to know what they may be, and I would guess they would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

Permission aside, if I had mentioned that there are hidden dangers, I wouldn't feel guilty. Feel bad, sure.

 

I think you're misinterpreting my comments and taking them personally when they were meant to be general discussion points, not attacks.

 

My point, once again, is that regardless of the caveats and warnings we may write in our cache descriptions, if a land owner says it's too dangerous to place a cache somewhere, all the warnings and descriptions in the world don't make it okay to do so.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Permission aside, if I had mentioned that there are hidden dangers, I wouldn't feel guilty. Feel bad, sure.

This is a big part of the OP and getting this thread back on the rails...

 

It is important to use the cache listing as a place to outline the dangers of the cache. I remember when listings were clear about things like "don't approach from the east, it's private property", or "Don't use the railway to approach this cache, as this is trespassing on railway property...". Not all caches are this clear anymore. And certainly, not all cachers are reading the descriptions anyway.

 

So this is really important for the issue at hand--cachers need to be aware of the laws and regulations that restrict geocaching in certain cases. Railroads in the US are one of these cases. As this is a multi, the owner of the listing should put a disclaimer on the listing that outlines how one should not trespass to access this cache, or use railways to access any waypoint along the way. Owner's rear=covered.

 

We can't control what a cache seeker does, but at least we as owners can do our best to outline the guidelines, the conditions of the cache location, etc. Groundspeak does this on their end with disclaimers and guidelines, and we can extend this to put the onus on the seeker to follow the laws and guidelines.

 

Does this mean a cacher won't use the railway to access the cache location? No. Can someone still access a cache location by using a railway? Sure. Will they get caught? Maybe. But where the rubber hits the road is when the seeker is caught, and the face it puts on geocaching to the authorities. Then we're back to basics again like when the game was new...but the problem is that this game isn't new. Happy 14 year birthday, here's your lawsuit...

[4wheelin_fool]

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

What if you lacked adequate permission for placement, and that permission was denied by the land owner based on safety concerns? If you went ahead and placed the cache anyway, would you feel bad if someone was hurt?

That is a Straw Man attack. I am not going to answer that.

 

It's not meant to be an attack, it's a hypothetical situation. I am not suggesting that you, personally, would do such a thing. I'm just suggesting that, at a certain point, there is a level of responsibility.

OK, so you will try to use the Slippery Slope fallacy instead?

 

Anyway, there may well be legal implications in the hypothetical situation you laid out. I do not pretend to know what they may be, and I would guess they would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

Permission aside, if I had mentioned that there are hidden dangers, I wouldn't feel guilty. Feel bad, sure.

 

I think you're misinterpreting my comments and taking them personally when they were meant to be general discussion points, not attacks.

 

My point, once again, is that regardless of the caveats and warnings we may write in our cache descriptions, if a land owner says it's too dangerous to place a cache somewhere, all the warnings and descriptions in the world don't make it okay to do so.

 

That's correct, the warnings don't make it okay to do so, but any responsibilities still fall completely on the seeker.

[4wheelin_fool]

There appears to be a common belief that a geocache placement entitles a seeker to not be completely responsible for their actions. That is plainly incorrect.

[+dprovan]

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

I ask myself why you wouldn't warn about specific dangers you knew about. At one end of the spectrum are dangers that are too minimal or common for you to need to mention. At the other end of the spectrum is you specifically finding a place to put a cache that's more of a challenge to find because of the number of ways someone could get killed on the way to GZ. It's not clear where, but somewhere between those two points it does in fact become your duty to warn about hidden dangers.

 

There appears to be a common belief that a geocache placement entitles a seeker to not be completely responsible for their actions. That is plainly incorrect.

I really don't see that belief being terribly common. If nothing else, it's plainly obvious that danger may have appeared at GZ since the cache was placed, for example.

 

On the other hand, US society as a whole has embraced the idea that the individual should never be held responsible for their own safety. That may be a reason that some people have the faulty and unreasonable expectation that reviewers insure safety.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

I ask myself why you wouldn't warn about specific dangers you knew about.

 

This brings up an interesting scenario. If the CO doesn't appear to know about (or just doesn't realize the risk involved) a hidden danger what responsibility do we have, as finders of a cache have as far as notifying the cache owner or future seekers of the cache.

 

I can think of two specific examples that I have encountered.

 

For the first, the cache was located along a trail that follows the rim of one of Ithaca's famous gorges. While not as deep as some others, the approach I took to the cache followed the trail which at one point was about 10 feet from a landslide with a near vertical drop of 200' to the rocks and river below. The cache listing made no mention whatsoever of any dangers and the ground where the cache was located was basically flat. I found the cache around dusk, and my first thought was that it wouldn't take much for a small child to stray from the trail a few feet and step right off that cliff. I was one of the first (if not the first, I don't remember) and posted a warning about the steep cliff close to the trail in my log and suggested that those with small children of dogs of leash might want to exercise caution when finding the cache. I got three PMs in response. Two were from geocachers with small children that thanked me for the warning. The third was from the cache owner. She thanked me as well. She said that she was unaware of the landslide as she had approached the cache from the other direction on the trail and hadn't walked the 150' or so past the hiding spot where the trail got close to the cliff.

 

I don't know how many types of sociopaths there are but, even though I don't think it was my responsibility to add a warning in my log it felt like the right thing to do.

 

In the other case, I came across a 5T cache recently about 50 miles north me that involved paddling a boat down an urban "river". The cache listing included several photos of the river including one with the CO paddling a canoe with a friend. The text with that photo mentioned the "small waterfall" they went over but "its was easy, we did it twice". This was also a case of potential danger that the CO apparently didn't know about. As a long time kayaker with a lot of training in assisted and self rescues and risks involved while paddling a small boat by some of the most accomplished sea kayakers in the world I saw several things in that photo that gave me concern. The first was that neither of them was wearing a PFD or a helmet. Anyone with any amount of experience paddling moving water would understand that this is just not done. They could paddle that river 100 times without incident, but all it would take would be one capsize, smacking your head on a rock and the consequences could prove fatal. This particular was published in the early spring when, after a long cold winter, there might be a nice 70 degree spring day. However, the water in this part of the country might still be in the high 40's or low 50's. I haven't done it much lately but I used to participate in a couple of paddling forums and like clockwork, every spring there would be stories of people going out on a lovely spring day, wearing a t-shirt and cotton jeans, capsizing a few hundred feet from shore then dying from hypothermia because they weren't dressed for the water temperature. Both of the guys in the photo were wearing t-shirts and jeans. Finally, that "small waterfall" looked to me like a small low head dam. If anyone is interested can look up low head dam and you'll see terms like "drowning machine" or "killing machine". Even a small low head dam can create a recirculating water flow that can essentially keep someone that has capsized in the recirculating flow until they're physically pulled out. Hundreds of people have died in them. What makes them so dangerous is that they look benign and safe passage over one (hitting it straight on with enough momentum) one day doesn't guarantee that it can be done safely the next. All it takes is a small change in the river level, a mis-timed stroke, have the boat turn sideways, and you're in the drowning machine. To the untrained eye, the photo might look like a couple of guys enjoying a paddle on nice spring day, and give the impression to a potential seeker of a cache that went to the big box store and bought a $200 kayak so they could get some paddle caches that it's perfectly safe, someone with experience and training would see the potential dangers. The difference between this and the other example is that even though the CO wasn't aware of the dangers, the consequences could be the same, even though the danger isn't as apparent as a steep cliff that could result in a 200 foot fall onto sharp rocks.

 

I described this story a few years ago asking others what they might have done and eventually decided not to post a note on the cache as I hadn't actually visited the location. I don't know what kind of sociopath this makes me but I still feel a bit guilty I didn't mention anything to the CO.

 

[+narcissa]

There appears to be a common belief that a geocache placement entitles a seeker to not be completely responsible for their actions. That is plainly incorrect.

 

There appears to be a common belief that safety and adequate permission can be entirely disregarded and that it's a-okay to put a cache anywhere we darn well please.

[4wheelin_fool]

There appears to be a common belief that a geocache placement entitles a seeker to not be completely responsible for their actions. That is plainly incorrect.

 

There appears to be a common belief that safety and adequate permission can be entirely disregarded and that it's a-okay to put a cache anywhere we darn well please.

I can agree with that, although they are separate subjects. Any cache can be unsafe.

[+narcissa]

There appears to be a common belief that a geocache placement entitles a seeker to not be completely responsible for their actions. That is plainly incorrect.

 

There appears to be a common belief that safety and adequate permission can be entirely disregarded and that it's a-okay to put a cache anywhere we darn well please.

I can agree with that, although they are separate subjects. Any cache can be unsafe.

 

Of course any cache can be unsafe. But there are particular instances - like railways - where caches are specifically not allowed because of obvious safety issues, and yet wannabe cache owners will try every possible angle to get theirs published anyway.

[Andronicus]

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

I ask myself why you wouldn't warn about specific dangers you knew about. At one end of the spectrum are dangers that are too minimal or common for you to need to mention. At the other end of the spectrum is you specifically finding a place to put a cache that's more of a challenge to find because of the number of ways someone could get killed on the way to GZ. It's not clear where, but somewhere between those two points it does in fact become your duty to warn about hidden dangers.

...

Another option may be that based on the terrain, only people expecting the dangers, and prepared for the dangers would be attempting to reach the geocache. All of my back country caches have a generic back country warning. There is no spacific mention of cliffs etc. There are many published books that have that information available if a cacher so desires. Infact I have several of those books that I use for my back country caching.

 

There appears to be a common belief that a geocache placement entitles a seeker to not be completely responsible for their actions. That is plainly incorrect.

 

There appears to be a common belief that safety and adequate permission can be entirely disregarded and that it's a-okay to put a cache anywhere we darn well please.

Why do you keep harping on the permission topic? It seems a little off topic. Everyone else is discussing safety. The OP believed GZ was on public land, not RR land. So the question was basicly, will the reviewer block this location becuase it is 'unsafe' due to close proximity of a RR line.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Andronicus

[Andronicus]

Funny, a recent topic I started about safety related to an electric fence, everyone kept mentioning that many cachers don't read the cache page, so I should avoide the area. But now, everyone seems to be implying that a warning is sufficient.

[+dprovan]

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

I ask myself why you wouldn't warn about specific dangers you knew about. At one end of the spectrum are dangers that are too minimal or common for you to need to mention. At the other end of the spectrum is you specifically finding a place to put a cache that's more of a challenge to find because of the number of ways someone could get killed on the way to GZ. It's not clear where, but somewhere between those two points it does in fact become your duty to warn about hidden dangers.

...

Another option may be that based on the terrain, only people expecting the dangers, and prepared for the dangers would be attempting to reach the geocache. All of my back country caches have a generic back country warning. There is no spacific mention of cliffs etc. There are many published books that have that information available if a cacher so desires. Infact I have several of those books that I use for my back country caching.

So you don't warn people about common dangers that people will be expecting. I don't have a problem with that. Your use of the term "hidden" made it sound like you weren't warning about specific dangers that you knew about but the seeker wouldn't be expecting. Besides, that's the more interesting case when discussing "responsibility" since it eliminates the undecidable issue of whether the seeker "should have known".

 

Funny, a recent topic I started about safety related to an electric fence, everyone kept mentioning that many cachers don't read the cache page, so I should avoide the area. But now, everyone seems to be implying that a warning is sufficient.

When you ask me if you should put a cache somewhere where there is danger, I'll recommend you don't. If you ignore my advice and place a cache in a dangerous location, then I'll say you should try to warn people.

[Andronicus]

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

I ask myself why you wouldn't warn about specific dangers you knew about. At one end of the spectrum are dangers that are too minimal or common for you to need to mention. At the other end of the spectrum is you specifically finding a place to put a cache that's more of a challenge to find because of the number of ways someone could get killed on the way to GZ. It's not clear where, but somewhere between those two points it does in fact become your duty to warn about hidden dangers.

...

Another option may be that based on the terrain, only people expecting the dangers, and prepared for the dangers would be attempting to reach the geocache. All of my back country caches have a generic back country warning. There is no spacific mention of cliffs etc. There are many published books that have that information available if a cacher so desires. Infact I have several of those books that I use for my back country caching.

So you don't warn people about common dangers that people will be expecting. I don't have a problem with that. Your use of the term "hidden" made it sound like you weren't warning about specific dangers that you knew about but the seeker wouldn't be expecting. Besides, that's the more interesting case when discussing "responsibility" since it eliminates the undecidable issue of whether the seeker "should have known".

...

Note that this quote is not my complete post.

Here is my full post:

FTR: One of my TB's was a broken Nintendo DS with a hole drilled through it for the attachment cable. It was in a cacher's car in California, and got the cacher's car broken into, and was stolen. I do feel a little bad, so I dont't think I am a sociopath.

 

But, Even if I hid a cache in an area that I know had hidden dangers, and all I did as a warning was to mention that there are hidden dangers, I think that that is sufficient to fulfill my duty to other cachers.

 

That said, all of my cachers do give detailed description of any dangers. It is just that I don't think that is nescesary. Infact, I was recently giving a little intro/training talk on geocaching. The first topic I covered is that each cacher is responsible for his/her own safety (and that of their children). The cache hider, geocaching.com, the provincial park, me etc. are not responsible for anyone elses safety.

So yes, I do warn people. I just don't think or expect it to be required.

[+wmpastor]

One of my TB's was a broken Nintendo DS with a hole drilled through it for the attachment cable. It was in a cacher's car in California, and got the cacher's car broken into, and was stolen.

That thief must have been PO'ed. Hope he hurt his hand busting the window. Wonder if he became a cacher...intro-app, maybe.... He hasn't logged the TB yet, has he??

[Andronicus]

One of my TB's was a broken Nintendo DS with a hole drilled through it for the attachment cable. It was in a cacher's car in California, and got the cacher's car broken into, and was stolen.

That thief must have been PO'ed. Hope he hurt his hand busting the window. Wonder if he became a cacher...intro-app, maybe.... He hasn't logged the TB yet, has he??

No. It has not been logged. I am going to release a replacement soon.