Cachers safety must be paramount

[+Firefox.3]

Some of you may have seen a thread I posted on the Geocaching UK facebook page on Wednesday 31 January 2018.  

It concerns a series of caches along the Ashton Canal.  This is my post...

“I usually love where caching takes me....but not today.
I have never disliked a series, location and walk so much.  Piles and piles of rubbish everywhere, drugs paraphernalia at and near cache locations, dog muck everywhere and human excrement all over.  

Unfortunately for us, as it was a linear route we had parked the car at the end of the series and caught the train to the start.  If we could have we would have abandoned the walk.

I am in two minds whether to say which series we did.  I don’t want to slate the CO, although I’m not sure if they are still caching as no maintainence has been done and several caches have been disabled since October last year.  However, I really wouldn’t want other cachers to experience what we had to today.  

I have put ‘Needs Archiving’ on all caches where we saw needles or drugs wrappers, or where it was dangerous to search due to the rubbish. The whole lot could do with Archiving really.

Just a few of the pictures from today, I got fed up of taking photos of rubbish. 

This is not my idea of caching.”

I can not stress enough how vile some of these locations were.  

Several of the caches in the series are already disabled due to piles of rubbish or because they’re missing. They were disabled in October 2017, no maintenance has been done.  One was disabled in July 2017!  The reviewer has chosen to allow the CO a further 3 weeks to do maintenance.  In the meantime these caches are still being searched for by cachers, locations where there are needles/syringes/human excrement/stinking of urine.  

What does it take for a CO and or reviewer to think - 

“Are these locations suitable for cachers to search?” 

“Are these locations safe?  Is there a serious risk of injury?”

“Would you be happy for children to cache here?”  

“Have I, as a CO or reviewer, taken reasonable steps to deal with this matter effectively, safely and with cachers best interests at heart?”

The answer to all the above is no.  The CO’s lack of response is deafening, and the reviewers decision to allow more time is reckless.  I would even suggest there is an element of culpability, being aware of the problems but failing to take reasonable action to safeguard cachers.  Even if the CO did go and ‘do maintenance’, unless they are going to collect all the needles and drugs paraphanalia, clean up the piles of human faeces and take a lorry to clear up 9 miles worth of flytipping and litter, then the problem will still remain.

I have done everything I can to get this matter resolved.  I have posted NA on all caches where there were needles/syringes/evidence of drug taking/human excrement. I have contacted the Canal and RIver Trust, Manchester City Council and Tameside Council. I have warned other cachers of the health hazards and state of the area via facebook.  I have posted on the reviewers facebook page, hoping for someone to see sense.  I have contacted the reviewer for the relevant area voicing my concerns. I have emailed Groundwspeak, but their reply it is clear that they haven’t bothered to read my email to the end.

I am at a complete loss as to why these caches are still live or disabled.  Even if they are disabled, they can still be accessed to view on numerous caching apps, and people will look for disabled caches, but may not have read previous logs so are oblivious to the dangers at GZ.

 What more do reviewers need to decide enough is enough?

[+geohatter]

 

Quote

What does it take for a CO and or reviewer to think - 

“Are these locations suitable for cachers to search?” 

“Are these locations safe?  Is there a serious risk of injury?”

“Would you be happy for children to cache here?”  

“Have I, as a CO or reviewer, taken reasonable steps to deal with this matter effectively, safely and with cachers best interests at heart?”

None of the above is anything to to with a reviewer or the CO. It's all on the finder to decide where they go caching and if they should attempt a cache when they get to GZ. The CO and the reviewers are not responsible for your safety and never have been. All the concerns stated above can be applied to caches where you have to climb a tree but we'd never take action against such a cache.

These caches are disabled with a note from the reviewer to give the CO a chance to respond and rectify the situation. If there is no response from the CO the reviewer will archve them. There are very few cases where we would archive without warning. This CO is being treated the same way as everyone else. Please be patient and the situation will be resolved.

Paul
geohatter
Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK Geocaching Policies Wiki
Geocaching.com Help Center
UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

[+Firefox.3]

I find your response unbelievable. Who else’s responsibility is it?  If i was made aware that druggies were leaving needles by one of my caches I would archive it.  If I placed the cache, I have a responsibility to maintain it and a moral responsibility to deal with a problem that could cause a serious health risk to cachers who believe they’re just looking for a micro under a hedge.  

You can not compare the risk of climbing a tree to needles used by drug addicts!  

I am intrigued to know what occasions you would archive without warning?  I would have thought needles and human excrement came pretty high up on the list  

One of these caches was disabled in July 2017, 7 months ago, others were disabled in October 2017.  One cache already had a note from the reviewer giving them until the end of January, the reviewer has now given another 20 days on that cache?? I would have thought 7 months was more than ample time.

 

 

[+geohatter]

Quote

Who else’s responsibility is it?

Your safey is your responsibility. Always. It is never on the CO or the reviewer. It is only the CO's responsibility to maintain the cache and the accociated listing. The reviewer is responsible for making sure the cache complies with the guidelines and that the cache is kept maintained. If a cache has a maintenance issue and a reviewer needs to get involved a warning must be the first communication. It's only fair to give the CO a chance to rectify the situation.

Think of it this way. If I got hurt at one of your caches, would you take responsibility for it? Would you be happy to have legal proceedings against you if it was serious enough? Or would you consider it my own fault because I am responsible for my own safety?

Quote

I am intrigued to know what occasions you would archive without warning?

If a landowner finds a cache on their land that they don't want to be there.

Quote

You can not compare the risk of climbing a tree to needles used by drug addicts!

I am not. I was stating that the concerns you raised were comparable. You seem to want a reviewer to review for safety. We can never do that and will never do that. It is not our responsibility It is always the responsibility of the finder. If you don't feel safe doing a cache you walk away.

In situations like this one you express your concerns. If the CO does nothing you get a reviewer involved and they do what is necessary. All of which has happened in this situation. If the reviewer was ignoring the situation then that would be an issue to raise.

Quote

One of these caches was disabled in July 2017, 7 months ago, others were disabled in October 2017.  One cache already had a note from the reviewer giving them until the end of January, the reviewer has now given another 20 days on that cache?? I would have thought 7 months was more than ample time.

As I have said, we have to give the CO a chance to rectify the situation. There may be other places a cache can go that are safer. They have the option to move them. They can't do that if we archive them. If we get no response, then the cache will be archived. Either way the problem is solved.