Jump to content

I appreciate the challenge, but.....


Malemotives

Recommended Posts

Sometimes they do -- but if they are a noob and the type who jump into and out of the game within a few weeks (or days) they may never get the message. Further, some unsuspecting person from out of town or out of country could be lured there and suffer some misfortune. I know I've been in some very bad parts of towns before. Sometimes you see a clear sign and sometimes you are busy running while they reload.

Link to comment

It's behind the step along with an empty bottle of Thunderbird and a few needles. CO thought the house was a public area since the city owned it.

 

0401be041f560f1da375e197d0e40a9f.600x.jpg

 

Looks like a great challenge. I would put on my worst clothes, buy some old cheap blanket, strap a gps under my sleeve...wrap myself in the blanket, smear dog poo and dirt on it, wait until night...pour alcohol over myself, stagger around and say things like "whats the frequency kenneth!" out loud while zeroing in on GZ...

Link to comment
My level of comfort with an urban-core neighbourhood is probably a lot lower than someone who lives in that neighbourhood, but much higher than someone who lives in a small town an hour away. Whose level of comfort do we go on when we decide that a place is just too "sketchy" for a cache?

 

In my experience, I wouldn't say that there are any dangerously bad neighborhoods in Toronto but a real action spot for me, back in the day as a taxicab driver, was Cabbagetown

 

Not long after I started geocaching, a hide was published there which turned out to be one of the best urban caches I have done so far: The Bubbly Fountain

 

Here's the sketchiest Google Streetview image of GZ I could find:

 

ea97a8df-67f0-4565-b3f8-b6eebb60224e.jpg

 

It had all the elements; creatively hidden and a respectable size which required a challenging amount of stealth (as the logs show).

 

Given the nature of the indigenous denizens, I am surprised it lasted as long as it did:

 

 

Found the cache pretty quickly but had a strange looking muggle watching us and would not leave
Great hiding spot on this one some "locals" asked me if they needed to move along, figured if they were that out of it I could retrieve without them being "interested".
Third of four today. Two Roscoes were with two associated muggles.
Most of the muggles are too crazy to notice what you are up to.
Was only there for a few minutes and hit up for cash by a few people. Also muggles on the benches and sleeping on the grass. So I left with a DNF
While looking in the wrong place, also found a LCBO paper bag with a full unopened bottle of sherry. Decided to leave it for the locals.
I was being watched and questioned and propositioned etc... At least my kid wasn't with me.
Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

So what was revealed to you exactly? Because I looked back and see nothing. Is it that I prefer Beringer over Beaulieu? Because truly I'm an equal opportunist wine drinker. Oh, and if you are talking about the housing photo, perhaps it was added because the houses are all boarded up and there's garbage strewn all over the place. That's why I wouldn't go there. So maybe don't jump to conclusions about what you think you know about people.

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

So what was revealed to you exactly? Because I looked back and see nothing. Is it that I prefer Beringer over Beaulieu? Because truly I'm an equal opportunist wine drinker. Oh, and if you are talking about the housing photo, perhaps it was added because the houses are all boarded up and there's garbage strewn all over the place. That's why I wouldn't go there. So maybe don't jump to conclusions about what you think you know about people.

 

There's a difference between:

 

- That's not for me, I'm going to move on to another cache.

 

- Nobody should place a cache in a place that I think is sketchy.

 

I've found some pretty awesome caches in places with boarded up buildings and/or garbage, so if that's now the criteria for deciding that a place is too "sketchy" for caching, that is sad.

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

So what was revealed to you exactly? Because I looked back and see nothing. Is it that I prefer Beringer over Beaulieu? Because truly I'm an equal opportunist wine drinker. Oh, and if you are talking about the housing photo, perhaps it was added because the houses are all boarded up and there's garbage strewn all over the place. That's why I wouldn't go there. So maybe don't jump to conclusions about what you think you know about people.

 

There's a difference between:

 

- That's not for me, I'm going to move on to another cache.

 

- Nobody should place a cache in a place that I think is sketchy.

 

I've found some pretty awesome caches in places with boarded up buildings and/or garbage, so if that's now the criteria for deciding that a place is too "sketchy" for caching, that is sad.

 

So please enlighten me on what YOU think is sketchy since you're putting down other's ideas of sketchy. How about death row at San Quentin? Would you go there?

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

You have a point, but you can't ignore that someone white and living above median income would stick out like a sore thumb if they walked into that picture and started looking under a step for something. You can be thinking positive things about everyone else there and still be uncomfortable with that search. And in that case, you might call the area "sketchy" just because it's a boarded up abandoned building.

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

So what was revealed to you exactly? Because I looked back and see nothing. Is it that I prefer Beringer over Beaulieu? Because truly I'm an equal opportunist wine drinker. Oh, and if you are talking about the housing photo, perhaps it was added because the houses are all boarded up and there's garbage strewn all over the place. That's why I wouldn't go there. So maybe don't jump to conclusions about what you think you know about people.

 

There's a difference between:

 

- That's not for me, I'm going to move on to another cache.

 

- Nobody should place a cache in a place that I think is sketchy.

 

I've found some pretty awesome caches in places with boarded up buildings and/or garbage, so if that's now the criteria for deciding that a place is too "sketchy" for caching, that is sad.

 

So please enlighten me on what YOU think is sketchy since you're putting down other's ideas of sketchy. How about death row at San Quentin? Would you go there?

 

What I think is sketchy isn't relevant, since I'm not asking anyone to stop placing caches there. I choose to use my own observation and the website's features to customize my own caching experience, instead of demanding that cache owners cater to my tastes.

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

You have a point, but you can't ignore that someone white and living above median income would stick out like a sore thumb if they walked into that picture and started looking under a step for something. You can be thinking positive things about everyone else there and still be uncomfortable with that search. And in that case, you might call the area "sketchy" just because it's a boarded up abandoned building.

 

Someone from that neighbourhood might be wary of yours, because they would stick out. Should your neighbourhood be off limits to caching because some people feel uncomfortable there?

Link to comment

I am in no way belittling anyone on their feelings of certain areas, that gut feeling is your stay alive instinct. Your spidey senses, so follow them.

 

I always had to laugh at how diffrent people's feelings on an area. Before transfering out to another area I used to work in an area of town that in a .08 Sq mile region where 15,000 police calls came in a year. Shootings stabbings rapes, homicides. Very bad area.

 

My wife takes a job in a smaller city west of us and everyone warns her about ridding the train because it's dangerous. I rode with her a few times to make sure.. it was dangerous because one store had graffiti on its back wall. Other wise it was a walk in the park!

 

I won't judge another's feeling on an area. If they are concerned ignore the area and avoid it is probably safer and less stressful for that person. If you are scared or overly uptight and there does happen to be someone there with nefarious intentions you will stick out like a sore thumb!

Edited by doc73
Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

So what was revealed to you exactly? Because I looked back and see nothing. Is it that I prefer Beringer over Beaulieu? Because truly I'm an equal opportunist wine drinker. Oh, and if you are talking about the housing photo, perhaps it was added because the houses are all boarded up and there's garbage strewn all over the place. That's why I wouldn't go there. So maybe don't jump to conclusions about what you think you know about people.

 

There's a difference between:

 

- That's not for me, I'm going to move on to another cache.

 

- Nobody should place a cache in a place that I think is sketchy.

 

I've found some pretty awesome caches in places with boarded up buildings and/or garbage, so if that's now the criteria for deciding that a place is too "sketchy" for caching, that is sad.

 

So please enlighten me on what YOU think is sketchy since you're putting down other's ideas of sketchy. How about death row at San Quentin? Would you go there?

 

What I think is sketchy isn't relevant, since I'm not asking anyone to stop placing caches there. I choose to use my own observation and the website's features to customize my own caching experience, instead of demanding that cache owners cater to my tastes.

 

 

Who is "demanding that cache owners cater to [your] tastes."? You sure are getting defensive for a post where the OP simply said that he didn't care for the area that a cache was hidden in. Nobody is "demanding" anything here. They are simply and clearly expressing a point of view. Your world is not coming to an end. You can chill out and relax. This thread is not threatening your caching experience.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

This is the very first post with any mention of race or color, so it's hard to determine what the heck you are referring to. But since you brought it up, there simply aren't many geocaches hidden in minority areas, as minorities don't geocache as much as white people. The nasty hides that I have found were in areas that have a sizable white population, although skin color has nothing to do with it. Finding needles, bum liquor bottles, crack baggies, condoms and garbage is what I would consider a nasty area.

Link to comment

Some of the areas where I've found caches would certainly be considered 'sketchy' by some. Heck, even I would avoid some of the areas where I've made finds, depending on time of day and how many people are in the area. On several occasions, I've arrived at/near cache coordinates and decided to move along because the area didn't seem safe. Whether there was a real threat or not isn't for others to judge. Everyone has their own threshhold for security and comfort. If someone has a gut feeling that makes them uncomfortable, then I wouldn't fault them for following their gut. Even if it's not a 'sketchy' area, 'bad' things can happen in 'good' areas.

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

This is the very first post with any mention of race or color, so it's hard to determine what the heck you are referring to. But since you brought it up, there simply aren't many geocaches hidden in minority areas, as minorities don't geocache as much as white people. The nasty hides that I have found were in areas that have a sizable white population, although skin color has nothing to do with it. Finding needles, bum liquor bottles, crack baggies, condoms and garbage is what I would consider a nasty area.

 

Did you see the picture that was posted?

Link to comment

Who is "demanding that cache owners cater to [your] tastes."? You sure are getting defensive for a post where the OP simply said that he didn't care for the area that a cache was hidden in. Nobody is "demanding" anything here. They are simply and clearly expressing a point of view. Your world is not coming to an end. You can chill out and relax. This thread is not threatening your caching experience.

 

Your view - that certain people should be shamed out of hiding caches in certain places based on subjective notions of security - is very problematic. It's important to challenge viewpoints that have great potential to be destructive.

Link to comment

Who is "demanding that cache owners cater to [your] tastes."? You sure are getting defensive for a post where the OP simply said that he didn't care for the area that a cache was hidden in. Nobody is "demanding" anything here. They are simply and clearly expressing a point of view. Your world is not coming to an end. You can chill out and relax. This thread is not threatening your caching experience.

 

Your view - that certain people should be shamed out of hiding caches in certain places based on subjective notions of security - is very problematic. It's important to challenge viewpoints that have great potential to be destructive.

 

"Shamed"? Starting a thread to talk about a cache location that you didn't like "has great potential to be destructive"?:rolleyes:

 

Nope. No hyperbole here.

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

This is the very first post with any mention of race or color, so it's hard to determine what the heck you are referring to. But since you brought it up, there simply aren't many geocaches hidden in minority areas, as minorities don't geocache as much as white people. The nasty hides that I have found were in areas that have a sizable white population, although skin color has nothing to do with it. Finding needles, bum liquor bottles, crack baggies, condoms and garbage is what I would consider a nasty area.

 

Did you see the picture that was posted?

 

I noticed several crumbling, boarded up buildings with broken glass hanging out of the window panes, with one appearing to be missing part of the roof. Don't know why you focused on race, as that makes no difference with that in the background. Being that there are kids playing, it likely is a safe area, but yet nasty enough to ask the question. Why is there a cache here?

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

 

This is the very first post with any mention of race or color, so it's hard to determine what the heck you are referring to. But since you brought it up, there simply aren't many geocaches hidden in minority areas, as minorities don't geocache as much as white people. The nasty hides that I have found were in areas that have a sizable white population, although skin color has nothing to do with it. Finding needles, bum liquor bottles, crack baggies, condoms and garbage is what I would consider a nasty area.

 

Did you see the picture that was posted?

 

I noticed several crumbling, boarded up buildings with broken glass hanging out of the window panes, with one appearing to be missing part of the roof. Don't know why you focused on race, as that makes no difference with that in the background. Being that there are kids playing, it likely is a safe area, but yet nasty enough to ask the question. Why is there a cache here?

 

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

 

I really admire the way you are protecting democracy and saving us from evil threads that would threaten our freedom. Stick to your guns!

 

(BTW: I think the urbex types are too busy urbexing to worry about lame geocaches)

Link to comment

Who is "demanding that cache owners cater to [your] tastes."? You sure are getting defensive for a post where the OP simply said that he didn't care for the area that a cache was hidden in. Nobody is "demanding" anything here. They are simply and clearly expressing a point of view. Your world is not coming to an end. You can chill out and relax. This thread is not threatening your caching experience.

 

Your view - that certain people should be shamed out of hiding caches in certain places based on subjective notions of security - is very problematic. It's important to challenge viewpoints that have great potential to be destructive.

 

"Shamed"? Starting a thread to talk about a cache location that you didn't like "has great potential to be destructive"?:rolleyes:

 

Nope. No hyperbole here.

 

Here's what's destructive:

 

"I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another."

 

You fail to understand that YOUR idea of a "crappy cache location" is highly subjective. Your wish - that people stop placing caches in "crappy" locations - is destructive.

 

Not to mention irrational. You could spend your life "bring crappy cache locations into public view" and it wouldn't even be a dent in the caches that fail to meet your standards.

 

It is far more sensible to use the website's features and your own senses to determine which caches you attempt, and which you pass over. You don't need to find them all.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

 

I really admire the way you are protecting democracy and saving us from evil threads that would threaten our freedom. Stick to your guns!

 

(BTW: I think the urbex types are too busy urbexing to worry about lame geocaches)

 

Oh, of course, people can only have one hobby.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

 

I really admire the way you are protecting democracy and saving us from evil threads that would threaten our freedom. Stick to your guns!

 

(BTW: I think the urbex types are too busy urbexing to worry about lame geocaches)

 

Oh, of course, people can only have one hobby.

 

Hey... that was sarcasm, wasn't it? :)

Link to comment

Who is "demanding that cache owners cater to [your] tastes."? You sure are getting defensive for a post where the OP simply said that he didn't care for the area that a cache was hidden in. Nobody is "demanding" anything here. They are simply and clearly expressing a point of view. Your world is not coming to an end. You can chill out and relax. This thread is not threatening your caching experience.

 

Your view - that certain people should be shamed out of hiding caches in certain places based on subjective notions of security - is very problematic. It's important to challenge viewpoints that have great potential to be destructive.

 

"Shamed"? Starting a thread to talk about a cache location that you didn't like "has great potential to be destructive"?:rolleyes:

 

Nope. No hyperbole here.

 

Here's what's destructive:

 

"I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another."

 

You fail to understand that YOUR idea of a "crappy cache location" is highly subjective. Your wish - that people stop placing caches in "crappy" locations - is destructive.

 

Not to mention irrational. You could spend your life "bring crappy cache locations into public view" and it wouldn't even be a dent in the caches that fail to meet your standards.

 

It is far more sensible to use the website's features and your own senses to determine which caches you attempt, and which you pass over. You don't need to find them all.

 

What on earth is desctructive about "maybe that will stop someone from placing another."? Nobody said "We need to pass laws to stop someone from passing another." Maybe someone that was considering placing a cache in a location that I consider crappy will read this thread and have second thoughts about it. Don't worry... that won't be the End O' Geocaching As We Know It. Really. I promise.

Link to comment

What on earth is desctructive about "maybe that will stop someone from placing another."? Nobody said "We need to pass laws to stop someone from passing another." Maybe someone that was considering placing a cache in a location that I consider crappy will read this thread and have second thoughts about it. Don't worry... that won't be the End O' Geocaching As We Know It. Really. I promise.

 

And yet, encouraging people to use the site's features to better pinpoint the caches they might like is "offensive."

Link to comment
"I applaud the OP for bringing crappy cache locations into public view. Maybe that will stop someone from placing another."

 

You fail to understand that YOUR idea of a "crappy cache location" is highly subjective. Your wish - that people stop placing caches in "crappy" locations - is destructive.

 

Not to mention irrational. You could spend your life "bring crappy cache locations into public view" and it wouldn't even be a dent in the caches that fail to meet your standards.

 

It is far more sensible to use the website's features and your own senses to determine which caches you attempt, and which you pass over. You don't need to find them all.

 

Talking about crappy caches is hardly destructive, as it enlightens those who may not realize how lousy theirs are. What's destructive is trying to stop those from discussing it. Nobody is trying to have these hides removed, they only are commenting on them.

 

Let's discuss the site's features you have mentioned a few times to filter out needles, condoms, and garbage. Sometimes you can read the logs to filter these caches out, but most often the logs simply say TFTC, thanks, or are a copy and paste variety.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Let's discuss the site's features you have mentioned a few times to filter out needles, condoms, and garbage. Sometimes you can read the logs to filter these caches out, but most often the logs simply say TFTC, thanks, or are a copy and paste variety.

 

That's where personal observation comes in. If you don't like the look of an area, move on.

 

If I wrote a forum post to complain every time I spotted a condom, a needle, or some garbage, I'd get banned for spamming the forum. Sometimes, rural areas are actually worse for that stuff because there's no city staff to clean up.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

 

For a girl who likes to try to prove a point you sure ignored the point. Again. On purpose. You called us racist because according to you, some of us call an area sketchy because there are non whites there and I don't appreciate it. I called it sketchy because of the dilapidated buildings and garbage strewn about NOT because of the people. I personally live in a very flavorful neighborhood, have lived in several others, and prefer it that way, thank you very much.

 

Can't reason with the unreasonable. I'm out.

Link to comment

What on earth is desctructive about "maybe that will stop someone from placing another."? Nobody said "We need to pass laws to stop someone from passing another." Maybe someone that was considering placing a cache in a location that I consider crappy will read this thread and have second thoughts about it. Don't worry... that won't be the End O' Geocaching As We Know It. Really. I promise.

 

And yet, encouraging people to use the site's features to better pinpoint the caches they might like is "offensive."

 

No. Once again, I never said that, nor did anybody else. Discounting the OP's opinion by telling them to just use the site's features to ignore caches is what I was and still am calling offensive.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

 

For a girl who likes to try to prove a point you sure ignored the point. Again. On purpose. You called us racist because according to you, some of us call an area sketchy because there are non whites there and I don't appreciate it. I called it sketchy because of the dilapidated buildings and garbage strewn about NOT because of the people. I personally live in a very flavorful neighborhood, have lived in several others, and prefer it that way, thank you very much.

 

Can't reason with the unreasonable. I'm out.

 

Wise decision. I think I will do the same. Getting way off topic here.

 

Many thanks to the OP for bringing your concerns here.

Link to comment

No. Once again, I never said that, nor did anybody else. Discounting the OP's opinion by telling them to just use the site's features to ignore caches is what I was and still am calling offensive.

 

I didn't discount the OP's opinion. I think it's entirely reasonable to feel uncomfortable at a cache. The only rational way to cope with that is to learn how to better avoid such situations in the future.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

 

For a girl who likes to try to prove a point you sure ignored the point. Again. On purpose. You called us racist because according to you, some of us call an area sketchy because there are non whites there and I don't appreciate it. I called it sketchy because of the dilapidated buildings and garbage strewn about NOT because of the people. I personally live in a very flavorful neighborhood, have lived in several others, and prefer it that way, thank you very much.

 

Can't reason with the unreasonable. I'm out.

 

Oh yes, the heaps and heaps of garbage. Right. Heavens to betsy, a styrofoam cup and a couple of plastic bags. Good thing I brought my heavy work boots or I might not survive.

Link to comment

Exactly what I asked, but it got ignored. Remove the people from the picture all together and THAT'S why it's a sketchy looking area. Multiple boarded buildings and garbage.

 

Might not be to your taste, but a lot of people like exploring urban decay. Seems natural that some urbex types would hide geocaches in the places that interest them.

 

For a girl who likes to try to prove a point you sure ignored the point. Again. On purpose. You called us racist because according to you, some of us call an area sketchy because there are non whites there and I don't appreciate it. I called it sketchy because of the dilapidated buildings and garbage strewn about NOT because of the people. I personally live in a very flavorful neighborhood, have lived in several others, and prefer it that way, thank you very much.

 

 

Can't reason with the unreasonable. I'm out.

 

Oh yes, the heaps and heaps of garbage. Right. Heavens to betsy, a styrofoam cup and a couple of plastic bags. Good thing I brought my heavy work boots or I might not survive.

 

That still doesn't address the fact that you brought race into the picture and said that was the reason that we didn't like the area. Yours was the first post that mentioned anything of the sort.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

That still doesn't address the fact that you brought race into the picture and said that was the reason that we didn't like the area. Yours was the first post that mentioned anything of the sort.

 

What's to address? Take the people out, and it's just some boarded up buildings. A lot of people would take picture of the oh-so-chic urban decay and thank the OP for bringing them to this spot before the buildings were gone. It's all fine and dandy to deny it now, but the picture was chosen for a reason - and it wasn't the garbage.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Let it go, you all are just chasing your tails.

 

It is an interesting discussion and very well could be a concern for safety and security reasons. But, but I do not think GS will ban caches in certain sketchy places anytime soon. It is an awareness though to those who hunt. GS banning these caches is as likely as GS banning caches on mountain tops or tree tops because they are (or can be) sketchy as well just for a diffrent reason.. Instead being mugged or caching a disease (just kidding) you could fall off the mountain and die.. :rolleyes:

 

It's all part of the game and we all get to choose how far we take it. I would check the cache out on my own (the one in the example picture) if I was alone, I can handle myself very well. I would never even do more than a driveby if I had my wife and daughter wife. Does not change a thing about the cache does not matter to me. I have passed a few caches for various reasons. Unsafe area, both due to bad parts of town and dangerous conditions environmentally speaking. All part of the GAME!!!

Link to comment

People's idea of what constitutes "sketchy" is revealing. Oh no, people who aren't white living below the median income, how shall my faint heart survive?

You have a point, but you can't ignore that someone white and living above median income would stick out like a sore thumb if they walked into that picture and started looking under a step for something. You can be thinking positive things about everyone else there and still be uncomfortable with that search. And in that case, you might call the area "sketchy" just because it's a boarded up abandoned building.

Someone from that neighbourhood might be wary of yours, because they would stick out. Should your neighbourhood be off limits to caching because some people feel uncomfortable there?

I was defending the use of the term "sketchy" to describe why some people would not want to seek that cache. In no way did I mean to imply that the area should be off limits to caches. In fact, earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I'd probably go ahead and look for a cache like that. Well, at least unless there was mention of dangerous or gross things like needles and condoms commonly being where I'd have to look.

 

Also, I have to admit I didn't look at the picture as closely as I should have and, instead, took narcissa's comment of "below the median income" as fact and echoed it in my response. Now that I've looked more carefully, I'm not convinced that we can judge the income level of the people in the picture just by looking at them. In particular, I see no reason to think that someone above the median income level would stick out there.

Link to comment

What's sketchy to me about all that in the photo is the cache essentially placed on or directly adjacent to a residential building that is itself connected and in close proximity to occupied residences...plus the boarded-up factor. I have to question the reasoning for placing a cache in such a location. Was it just because it was a big empty space on the map? Is there some historical signifigance about that particular stoop? Is the CO just trying to make the searchers uncomfortable by exposing their preconceptions and bigotry?

 

Honestly, I find it "sketchy" to be geocaching in an area that is strictly (and densely) residential. Living in an urban neighborhood in Atlanta, I'm well acquainted with the sort of reaction a suspiscious person gets...anything from stares to alerts and posts to local bulletin boards and social media...all the way to calls to the police. Neighborhood watches...home security cameras...even nosey neighbors make the whole thing "sketchy" and uncomfortable.

Link to comment

That still doesn't address the fact that you brought race into the picture and said that was the reason that we didn't like the area. Yours was the first post that mentioned anything of the sort.

 

What's to address? Take the people out, and it's just some boarded up buildings. A lot of people would take picture of the oh-so-chic urban decay and thank the OP for bringing them to this spot before the buildings were gone. It's all fine and dandy to deny it now, but the picture was chosen for a reason - and it wasn't the garbage.

 

Really? You certainly have a selective imagination. How about imagining getting stuck from a discarded needle and then running to the doctor to be tested for hepatitis B, C, and a few other diseases, as well as returning 3 months later for an HIV test?

Link to comment

That still doesn't address the fact that you brought race into the picture and said that was the reason that we didn't like the area. Yours was the first post that mentioned anything of the sort.

 

What's to address? Take the people out, and it's just some boarded up buildings. A lot of people would take picture of the oh-so-chic urban decay and thank the OP for bringing them to this spot before the buildings were gone. It's all fine and dandy to deny it now, but the picture was chosen for a reason - and it wasn't the garbage.

 

Really? You certainly have a selective imagination. How about imagining getting stuck from a discarded needle and then running to the doctor to be tested for hepatitis B, C, and a few other diseases, as well as returning 3 months later for an HIV test?

 

How about wearing sturdy shoes and watching where you step / put your hands?

 

Unfortunately, needles can be a problem in a lot of places - and not just the urban core. The same little hidey-holes geocachers favour also make good places to stash stuff.

 

My husband and I have both had to move caches because of drug stashes found nearby, and those weren't in places that were "sketchy" at first glance. His was in a park in the touristy area of downtown Ottawa, and mine was in a quiet suburb.

Link to comment

What's sketchy to me about all that in the photo is the cache essentially placed on or directly adjacent to a residential building that is itself connected and in close proximity to occupied residences...plus the boarded-up factor. I have to question the reasoning for placing a cache in such a location. Was it just because it was a big empty space on the map? Is there some historical signifigance about that particular stoop? Is the CO just trying to make the searchers uncomfortable by exposing their preconceptions and bigotry?

 

Honestly, I find it "sketchy" to be geocaching in an area that is strictly (and densely) residential. Living in an urban neighborhood in Atlanta, I'm well acquainted with the sort of reaction a suspiscious person gets...anything from stares to alerts and posts to local bulletin boards and social media...all the way to calls to the police. Neighborhood watches...home security cameras...even nosey neighbors make the whole thing "sketchy" and uncomfortable.

 

For sure, the places where I've felt *most* uncomfortable - enough to give up searching - were places where I felt like I was likely to disturb a resident.

 

The places that I find full of garbage tend to be out of the way rural spaces with nobody around - that's why people dump garbage there. It's a bit disappointing to find garbage on a hiking trail to a cache, but my inclination would be to suggest a CITO - not shame the owner into archiving the cache.

Link to comment

On the other fin...

We did used to go for almost any cache in New York City. Old days, when there were not a lot of caches around. Highbridge Park. Interesting historical area. The FTF tried it at 4 AM, and barely escaped getting mugged. So we decided on a Sunday morning when the fields were all in use. Headed off into the woods. The kids in the woods went running out like we were dangerous. Hmm.

Another along the Hudson, just north of the GWB. Many cachers made note of roving bands of thugs...

An el ride to the South Bronx for a cache hidden in a barred window of an automotive repair facility. I think the el bouncing scared us most.

A few pickle parks.

We had the reputation for going almost anywhere!

Then we went for a cache in Hudson River Park. Just north of I-95. The guy siting on the sidewalk with the van doors open was probably selling drugs. Off into the park. Again, an interesting historical area. Headed back to the cachemobile. Hmm... The guy in the car seems to be casing it. Went running toward the cachemobile, and he drove off quickly.

And that's when we decided to stop hunting caches in seedy places. Now there are lots of other caches to find in Walgreens parking lots! Definitely safer.

Link to comment

.

 

No. Once again, I never said that, nor did anybody else. Discounting the OP's opinion by telling them to just use the site's features to ignore caches is what I was and still am calling offensive.

 

I didn't discount the OP's opinion. I think it's entirely reasonable to feel uncomfortable at a cache. The only rational way to cope with that is to learn how to better avoid such situations in the future.

 

No, that is ONE rational option. Another is to lobby for higher standards. Groundspeak has a seemingly endless list of rules, some of which serve to diminish quality either because of the rule itself or the way it is enforced (probably more the latter). It is certainly possible to reduce the load of crap caches with better rules and/or practices.

 

.

Link to comment

.

 

No. Once again, I never said that, nor did anybody else. Discounting the OP's opinion by telling them to just use the site's features to ignore caches is what I was and still am calling offensive.

 

I didn't discount the OP's opinion. I think it's entirely reasonable to feel uncomfortable at a cache. The only rational way to cope with that is to learn how to better avoid such situations in the future.

 

No, that is ONE rational option. Another is to lobby for higher standards. Groundspeak has a seemingly endless list of rules, some of which serve to diminish quality either because of the rule itself or the way it is enforced (probably more the latter). It is certainly possible to reduce the load of crap caches with better rules and/or practices.

 

.

 

...which is exactly what they did when Groundspeak disallowed so-called "cache factories" and "seed caches", and what they were doing before they allowed power trails.

Link to comment

 

No, that is ONE rational option. Another is to lobby for higher standards. Groundspeak has a seemingly endless list of rules, some of which serve to diminish quality either because of the rule itself or the way it is enforced (probably more the latter). It is certainly possible to reduce the load of crap caches with better rules and/or practices.

 

 

First, you must establish what constitutes a "crap" cache, which brings us back to the beginning of the argument.

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...