+barefootjeff Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 It's been reported in the Adelaide Advertiser that a 66-year-old man fell 20 metres to his death while geocaching. There's been no indication of who it was yet. Quote Link to comment
+lee737 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Terrible news... RIP.... Quote Link to comment
+Team DEMP Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Very sad to hear about this. This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office Quote Link to comment
+Sheffy12065 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Very sad to hear about this. This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not. Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not. We have a cache that's off a wide, slight-sloping Game Lands trail, even say "an easy hike" on the cache page, yet we read of many who decide the way to it is over the huge cliff behind. I'm not rating it higher because some don't get it... Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Very sad to hear about this. This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office Based on the description, the CO isn't even living in the area anymore. Archive it. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Very sad to hear about this. This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not. I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Very sad to hear about this. This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not. I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple. And, accidents do happen, unfortunately. Quote Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Added to my Bookmark List. If anyone figures out who the cacher is, please let me know so I can update the memorial. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Very sad to hear about this. This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not. Hmm.. this one looks a lot less dangerous than the one I attempted this weekend in Minnesota which has the same terrain rating of 3.. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC54AF4_top-of-the-rock?guid=6acce9dc-bbbf-40db-ae4c-9d2c9d79bc51 Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple.I've read this a couple times, and I'm still not seeing the connection. The terrain rating is about how difficult the trip is, not how dangerous the trip is. The only reference to hazards is in the description of a T4.5 rating: "Extremely demanding movement over potentially hazardous terrain." Or does the "potentially hazardous terrain" phrase trump everything else? Even if there is no "extremely demanding movement" involved, does any "potentially hazardous terrain" require a T4.5 rating? Does that include any cache in an area with rattlesnakes (or other potentially hazardous wildlife)? Does that include any cache in an area with eucalyptus (or other trees that might drop potentially hazardous branches on anyone below)? Does that include any cache that requires seekers to drive to the trailhead (or use any other potentially hazardous form of transportation)? Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple.I've read this a couple times, and I'm still not seeing the connection. The terrain rating is about how difficult the trip is, not how dangerous the trip is. The only reference to hazards is in the description of a T4.5 rating: "Extremely demanding movement over potentially hazardous terrain." Or does the "potentially hazardous terrain" phrase trump everything else? Even if there is no "extremely demanding movement" involved, does any "potentially hazardous terrain" require a T4.5 rating? Does that include any cache in an area with rattlesnakes (or other potentially hazardous wildlife)? Does that include any cache in an area with eucalyptus (or other trees that might drop potentially hazardous branches on anyone below)? Does that include any cache that requires seekers to drive to the trailhead (or use any other potentially hazardous form of transportation)? "Terrain" implies the land itself...mud/bogs, rocks, steep slopes, etc. Flora and fauna are separate hazards that can be noted in attributes. Quote Link to comment
cezanne Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 "Terrain" implies the land itself...mud/bogs, rocks, steep slopes, etc. Flora and fauna are separate hazards that can be noted in attributes. I agree. However also when the land is regarded, difficulty and danger is not the same. There are risks which come from conditions like slippery ground, avalanches etc - this is something which is not part of the T-rating. It's up to each cacher to decide whether the conditions on the day of the envisaged visit match the personal abilities and experience level as well as the risk one is willing to take. Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right. Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger. Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted March 14, 2017 Author Share Posted March 14, 2017 I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right. Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger. Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous. There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants. Quote Link to comment
+DragonsWest Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Sad to see this happen. Respects to the lost cacher and the cacher's mates and family. Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right. Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger. Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous. There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants. You dont really understand. I am sorry. Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted March 14, 2017 Author Share Posted March 14, 2017 I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right. Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger. Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous. There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants. You dont really understand. I am sorry. You're right, I don't understand. Could you elaborate? Quote Link to comment
+Pontiac_CZ Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous. There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants. +1 BTW no attributes describing any kind of danger on the cache page. Edited March 14, 2017 by Pontiac_CZ Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.