Is this cache too dangerous?

January 21, 2003

[i started this thread in the wrong board, over on geocaching.com discussion, I am reposting this here to get it in the right place. I think.]

We did a cache this weekend which was kind of clever but seemed VERY dangerous to us. The cache is an Altoids box hanging by a string from a cattle guard....in the middle of a road! The box is well camouflaged (if it hadn't been for leaves in the cattle guard I wouldn't've spotted it.) It's a rural road, but an active one. A dozen or more cars passed during the time we were searching.

To repeat: this isn't a cattleguard over a trail, or a turnoff. It's a road with a county number that's on an official historic road loop.

We've probably done more dangerous caches -- like the one with the Rattlesnake warning -- but somehow, if I die caching, I'd rather be eaten by a mountain lion or swept out to sea than killed by a 4x4 while looking the wrong way on an active road.

We posted to the cache page that we thought it was a hideously-dangerous-stupid location, but did not do the magic "this cache should be archived" because we can't find a prohibition in our few rules about this.

I would add that this is one of five caches on a loop of roadside caches that has clearly been laid by bikers (we're hikers by nature, drivers in this instance) and we detect a slightly different ethos for biker-hidden caches, so perhaps we should just shut up and leave it lie. And in a couple of dozen finds, nobody else has expressed any kind of concern about the placement.

But at the same time I've been wracked with guilt for not posting this 'should be archived' because I have visions of some poor cacher wandering into an SUV's grille.

What to do, what to do?

I hate having to post negative comments on cache pages -- this is only the third time I've done it, and the other two were a cache under a protected-by-law dune grass and another one in the *middle* of an active cemetary where cachers would likely walk by the grieving, but neither of those were dangerous to human beings lives per se.

== Alt Dot Air ==

January 21, 2003

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I say if you feel that strongly about it go ahead and post the "cache should be archived" note. He probably won't archive it but at least it will be a serious heads up to anyone contemplating hunting it in the future and just maybe he'll add a fair warning to the cache page. I've placed several caches in areas that involve a certain amount of risk but I always try to be upfront about what's involved on the cache page so that people can make an informed decision about hunting them. There are lots of caches out there that are extremely dangerous and I think that's perfectly OK, "let the buyer beware" as it were as long as people know what it is that's for sale. On the cache page in question though I see no mention of the hazards involved. Assuming they're as serious as you say that really isn't fair to the hunter, who may be out there wandering around on that road at night not knowing what they're looking for or how busy the road is all while being distracted by their GPS. If the cache owner updates the page with a fair warning then I think it's fine, sounds like a clever hide.

sparklehorse

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message has been edited to fit your TV screen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This message was edited by sparklehorse on January 21, 2003 at 04:23 AM.]

January 21, 2003

If I picture this correctly it is a series of steel bars placed a few inches apart across the road so cattle won't cross but cars can cross easily. Then a fence on either side comes up to the cattle guard keeping the cattle just in one area.

What about the possibility of moving the hanging string toward the side of the road nearer to one of the fences instead of being in the middle? Would that be an appropriate suggestion to the cache owner? Or is that something that a finder could do?

3k · January 21, 2003

I think this cache is too dangerous only if someone holding a gun to your head forced you to do it.

If you looked for it by your own free will, then you assumed all risk.

January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I think this cache is too dangerous only if someone holding a gun to your head forced you to do it.

If you looked for it by your own free will, then you assumed all risk.

Exactly!

January 21, 2003

have to agree with the bassoonpilot. if it looks dangerous to you, don't go there! whether to seek or don't seek is a personal decision and shouldn't be made for me by anyone else. feel free to post a warning in your post if you want, but leave the decision to cache or not cache with the individual.

harry

January 21, 2003

Stashing a cache in the middle of a road...any road... is realy creating a dangerous hazard for other cachers. Sure we can assume all risk when we search for cachers but encouraging responsible stashing is not such a bad idea.

I would suggest that you e-mail the owner and ask him to think it through. That way you might at least get him re thinking the placement.

On a lighter note..perhaps it won't be too long before the cache becomes so 'buried in it' no one can find it anyway.

Hounddog.

3k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The 2 Dogs:
... encouraging responsible stashing is not such a bad idea.

I agree with you. I also think that many times "actions speak louder than words."

In other words, the actions of many geocachers speak louder than the complaints of one. If the cache is truly dangerous, cachers in the area will avoid (boycott, if you like) it, and that should send a clear message to the cache owner.

And if the majority of local cachers demonstrate that they like putting themselves in harm's way, then so be it.

6.4k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by AltDotAir:
I would add that this is one of five caches on a loop of roadside caches that has clearly been laid by bikers (we're hikers by nature, drivers in this instance) and we detect a slightly different ethos for biker-hidden caches, so perhaps we should just shut up and leave it lie. And in a couple of dozen finds, nobody else has expressed any kind of concern about the placement.

But at the same time I've been wracked with guilt for not posting this 'should be archived' because I have visions of some poor cacher wandering into an SUV's grille.

Just make sure we archive every other cache that might require you to walk across or along side a road. Also archive all those ones in the dadgum woods. Might trip on a rock and hurt ourselves. Delete the virtuals too, 'cause everyone knows how dangerous driving a car is (especially in the NYC area!).

Just keep the locationless ones that you can do from your computer online......no....wait..... OUCH! I think I'm getting carpel Tunnel Syndrome, better archive them too!

Gee, I *LOVE* geocaching!

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

2.6k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by AltDotAir:
[i started this thread in the wrong board, over on geocaching.com discussion, I am reposting this here to get it in the right place. I think.]

We did a cache this weekend which was kind of clever but seemed VERY dangerous to us. The cache is an Altoids box hanging by a string from a cattle guard....in the middle of a road!

== Alt Dot Air ==

I've done this cache, and the whole loop they're on. It took a good 15-20 minutes to find the cache. It that time not 1 car drove by. It is not dangerous. You can see a good 3/4 mile from the south, and from the north there is an intersection that causes people to slow down anyway.

And if you do get hit by a car. There is firestation 300 ft from the cache to provide assistance.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

5.7k · January 21, 2003

I've done this cache as well. One of the things that you have to consider is the fact that the cacher is *most likely* not going to put you in harms way purposely. In this case, the cacher didn't hide the cache in the middle of the street. When searching, look in all the safer spots first. I didn't think this one was that dangerous, and there were cars driving by when I looked for it. Use common sense when you are on a road, keep an ear out for cars and you should be fine (unless you get hit by a cyclist ).

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

1.5k · January 21, 2003

I'm curious to see how many of you are going to be in favor of this cache, while having been against the cache several months ago which was suspected of being on the side of a freeway...

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=5920954835

Ahh, who shall stick to their guns... I have a few ideas.

2.6k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
I'm curious to see how many of you are going to be _in favor of_ this cache, while having been _against_ the cache several months ago which was suspected of being on the side of a freeway...

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=5920954835

Ahh, who shall stick to their guns... I have a few ideas.

One is a freeway and one is a back country road. I wasn't for or against the 'freeway' cache. I just didn't make the assumption that you had to stop ON the freeway to get to the cache.

The cache in question on this thread is not on a freeway. There is plenty of safe parking and traffic is very light.

There is another cache, on the same loop, that I would consider riskier. It's a very small shoulder for parking and you have to cross the street and scramble up a loose hillside to get to a small cave. A slip would cause about a 10ft drop onto the road.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

January 21, 2003

in the cesspool of life...

One of my caches is still archived for being too dangerous. It was released last night 1/20/03. This morning 1/21/03 it was archived again. The admin is making me jump through hoops, which I have done and I am doing.

I complained back on Jan 2nd about two caches I thought were dangerous, the interstate cache and another. One I know is next to the interstate and you have to park on the interstate shoulder to access it.

The other was questionable and I withdrew my note from the cache page after hashing it out here.

For the record "There is no such thing as a cache that is too dangerous. There are geocache seeking people that make the cache activity dangerous."

You can have the soap box back.

Fair winds, Capn Skully

January 21, 2003

I think that is a great hiding spot. Like many above have said, when you get to a cache and think it is too dangerous for you to attempt it, just don't do it!

Dave

Me ambivalent? Well..... yes and no.

January 21, 2003

is simply that you don't KNOW it's going to be dangerous, do you, until you find out where it is, unless the cacher has posted something about the hazard.

For example, I've done a few caches that were near railroad beds. But the cacher clearly posted 'you do NOT have to cross the RR tracks to do this one' thus limiting the search area.

The extent of my actions is a public post in our log indicating our opinion that this is dangerous. It's not a spoiler. I think this is the MINIMUM we should do given our subjetive opinions about the cache location. It's the responsibility of the cache-placer, no doubt, for the cache itself...unless this violates the perceived line.

I don't by the ad absurdum argument that this is just one danger among many. I thought I pointed out in the original post that I had willingly undertaken dangerous situations in caching. So just launching off on the 'if you think doing the cache is so dangerous don't do it' line of "argument" is specious.

What I'm trying to get at is where the line is. We prohibit caches along active railroad tracks. How is the middle of an active road different? Why? I AM NOT ASKING RHETORICALLY. I want to understand.

One other clarification -- there's no side fence. This is in the right lane of traffic as you go East.

I will point out again I think this is a clever hide -- I just wish it had been done on a cattle guard on a trail or turn-off, not in the road.

FWIW, I can post a picture of the cache itself if that won't be considered a spoiler. Can pictures be uploaded to bulletin board posts....?

- Matt

== Alt Dot Air ==

January 21, 2003

* whether it's a freeway or a side country road, you'll still be wearing a toe-tag if you get hit by a vehicle. I did not take part in the Freeway discussion earlier, though, so I will refrain from making any additional comments of comparison.

However, I have done two caches that were quite close to the freeway, and they both clearly state 'you do NOT have to cross the roadway to get this cache'. That's what I consider proper labeling of the potential hazards.

* I know the cache of which George speaks on this loop, and it's a hazardous climb to be sure. But the slip and fall would just be a "normal" 30 foot drop to the side of the road, not onto the road itself.

The difference is the cacher clearly stated that it was hazardous (read Cave Man's page), said kids shouldn't be allowed, etc. AND that the location is obvious. In the cache in question, Fire House Fun, what I'm concerned about is the process of searching.

Actually, here's an excerpt from Cave Man's page:

quote:
when you find the small parking spot it will become obvious where the cache is. Then you will have to decide if you want to get it or not. If you are doing the Canada loop on your bike and are wearing bike shoes please be careful. If you are not then please be careful anyway. Kids not advised.

There's nothing like this on Fire House Fun.

It occurs to me what we're talking about is the nature of informed and assumed risk. We have a very, very, very high assumption of risk by the cache-seeker and the cache-seeker only the way geocaching is set up. I agree with that. Again I'm seeking as to what the line is.

== Alt Dot Air ==

January 21, 2003

quote:

What I'm trying to get at is where the line is. We prohibit caches along active railroad tracks. How is the middle of an active road different?

Why? I AM NOT ASKING RHETORICALLY. I want to understand.

I would say the difference is that placing caches too close to active railroad tracks is against the law, whereas hiding a cache at a cattle guard on a public road probably isn't.

Right now, some friends and I are making plans to log a cache that's up in a tree. Quite literally, perhaps 45 feet up. Naturally, getting up to the cache could easily be dangerous. Our response to this danger is not to say the cache should be archived, but instead make plans to eliminate or reduce the danger (e.g. belay the person climbing).

What is it about this particular cache that makes it impossible to mitigate the danger? Could you post people on the road on each side of the cattle guard, to warn approaching traffic? Light a traffic flare and put it on the road on each side, some distance away, to warn the drivers something's up? From other posts, it seems like a simple way to mitigate the danger is to simply search for the cache when there's no heavy traffic going past the spot.

January 21, 2003

quote:
It occurs to me what we're talking about is the nature of informed and assumed risk. We have a very, very, very high assumption of risk by the cache-seeker and the cache-seeker only the way geocaching is set up. I agree with that. Again I'm seeking as to what the line is.

== Alt Dot Air ==

Your points are well taken and I agree placing a cache in the middle of a road, even if it only has one car per day is not safe. With my luck I would be down on all fours grabbing the thing when that one car would pass. An abandoned road that no one can use is a different situation.

The problem is you won't get many people here to agree with you. What was recommended to me was to write the cacher first, tell him of your misgivings. I wrote to the cacher I was worried about and he stated "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" so I dropped it. You won't find much support here.

Fair winds, Capn Skully

January 21, 2003

The problem with putting warnings like this in logs is that they scroll back...

Here's the cache link:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=34564

I really don't want to spoil this for future cachers, but I guess that's the rub of the question. It seems like the warning about this cache location, if given properly, is inherently a spoiler.

our log:

quote:
Found at 17:03, tenth of twelve on the day. Left a 10-Lira piece and took the squished penny.

At the outset, we'll say this was an extremely clever hide. Great concept, nice camou job. We just wish it were in a safe location. More on this below. Let's just say Fire House Fun might become Emergency Room Fun awfully fast.

Leaves had collected below the cache container, so it wasn't as hard to spot as it probably was when first placed. When this gets cleaned out by the road crews, the cache may go missing -- be alert.

However, that may be a good thing. We came *this* close to posting that this cache should be archived, but will instead allow cachers to decide for themselves with this warning. This is a hideously-dangerously-placed cache. We don't want to spoil this for the well-seasoned cacher, but at the same time, this just is not a safe cache to do. We've clung to rocks 100 feet above the ocean surf, we've searched within yards of railroad tracks, we've braved mountain lions and rattlers in search of caches, and trust us, this is just a bad idea for a placement.

The same concept can be used in a safer location, and we'd urge the cacher to consider moving this one elsewhere. For now, anybody who's finding this -- PLEASE DO SO WITH A PARTNER, PREFERABLY TWO, WATCHING IN TWO DIRECTIONS.

== Alt Dot Air ==

5.9k · January 21, 2003

My 2 cents:

I wouldn’t hunt a cache that required stopping on the freeway. It’s a personal choice, as I knew a girl in my last flying squadron who was killed when her car broke down and she stopped on the freeway. That being said, I would never ask that one be archived if it were so placed. This one sounds fine to me; I would not have a problem hunting it.

Fact: There is no such thing as a “too dangerous” cache! Any cache that was placed without injury or death can likewise be found without injury or death. It’s the cache owner’s prerogative to make it as easy or as hard as they like. It’s not for us to second-guess them.

January 21, 2003

I know this has been touched upon in many other discussions, but one thing I'n worried about with caching in general is it getting a higher (negative) profile -- and then being regulated. Just one dumb accident, properly publicized, would be enough to get caches legally banned on public property. (California definitely seems like the kind of state where this could happen...no one is safe when the legislature is in session.)

Putting a cache on a road (and while I'm no legal scholar, I'm pretty sure it's just as technically illegal as putting a cache on a railroad bed) seems to me like it's not just tempting fate with respect to potential injury, but it's the kind of cache that might get be used by an officious government employee as "evidence" that the whole sport is a public nuisance.

I cite skateboarding as an example. Twenty years ago there were few public prohibitions on skateboarding, anywhere. A bunch of skateboarders made nuisances of themselves, one or two injured themselves on public property, and now skateboarding is highly-regulated.

Yes, there's lots of differences between skateboarding and geocaching, but my basic point is it only takes one or two dumb caches and one or two dumb -- or uninformed -- cachers to spoil it for everybody.

My gut is still that this particular cache crosses the line of common sense, but the vibe I'm getting from posts here is I should just leave it at having posted as I did and move on.

== Alt Dot Air ==

6.4k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by AltDotAir:
Putting a cache on a road (and while I'm no legal scholar, I'm pretty sure it's just as technically illegal as putting a cache on a railroad bed) seems to me like it's not just tempting fate with respect to potential injury, but it's the kind of cache that might get be used by an officious government employee as "evidence" that the whole sport is a public nuisance.

Well, actually no, its not, because a RR isnt public. The tracks and x feet to either side are the private property of the company that operates the railroad.

Now, back to the cache at hand. Maybe if those of us in more urban areas had some idea WTF a "cattleguard" is, we might better understand. How does it allow cars to pass and not cows?

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

January 21, 2003

a series of bars across a road creating a grille, but with metal slats going only in one direction (in the direction perpindicular to the flow of traffic). Cattle won't cross it because their hooves won't get any purchase. It's used instead of a gate (more convenient than opening and closing a gate every time).

Below a cattle guard is a trough a foot or two deep. This has drains on the sides so water doesn't collect.

Cars simply drive over it.

I have a picture of this one if only I knew how to post one to a forum 8-(

== Alt Dot Air ==

2.6k · January 21, 2003

Finding this cache is about as dangerous as riding your bike on a road. Do we need a helmet law for geocaching?

There is nothing wrong with this cache... at all. It's on a quite road with very little traffic. Visibility is good.

I'm still wondering how you imagine someone is going to be run over by car while attempting this cache.

Maybe, someone will reach down between the grate, grab the cache thus making a fist. His hand will then be to big to come out between the grate and there he will be trapped until the next car crosses. Isn't that a trick for trapping monkeys?

Please explain the scenario where this cache would cause more danger than sitting at a bus stop waiting for the ride home?

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

January 21, 2003

I also did this cache and I didn’t think it was dangerous. If someone were to do a cache that made you scale a rock wall would they question whether or not it is dangerous? Probably! ...but those who think it is dangerous just wouldn’t do the cache! Right? Or would they and then complain that it is too dangerous for them?

I still like the saying, “If you don’t want to go for the cache then don’t”!

If there is something to B17ch about I'll make sure you're the first to know.

January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by AltDotAir:
is simply that you don't KNOW it's going to be dangerous, do you, until you find out where it is, unless the cacher has posted something about the hazard.

For example, I've done a few caches that were near railroad beds. But the cacher clearly posted 'you do NOT have to cross the RR tracks to do this one' thus limiting the search area.

The extent of my actions is a public post in our log indicating our opinion that this is dangerous. It's not a spoiler. I think this is the MINIMUM we should do given our subjetive opinions about the cache location. It's the responsibility of the cache-placer, no doubt, for the cache itself...unless this violates the perceived line.

I don't by the ad absurdum argument that this is just one danger among many. I thought I pointed out in the original post that I had willingly undertaken dangerous situations in caching. So just launching off on the 'if you think doing the cache is so dangerous don't do it' line of "argument" is specious.

What I'm trying to get at is where the line is. We prohibit caches along active railroad tracks. How is the middle of an active road different? Why? I AM NOT ASKING RHETORICALLY. I want to understand.

One other clarification -- there's no side fence. This is in the right lane of traffic as you go East.

I will point out again I think this is a clever hide -- I just wish it had been done on a cattle guard on a trail or turn-off, not in the road.

FWIW, I can post a picture of the cache itself if that won't be considered a spoiler. Can pictures be uploaded to bulletin board posts....?

- Matt

== Alt Dot Air ==

So if I were to get to a cache area and the coordinates stick me in the middle of the road but the cache is really 30 feet off the road and I didn't know it should I complain and say it should be archived? OR... should I move on because I feel I am in danger? If you don't realize a car is coming down the road you might not want to leave your house.

If you make it to the cache and it appears to dangerous for your own abilities or well being LEAVE! I really don't see anyone standing there with a gun making you stay in the middle of the road.

If there is something to B17ch about I'll make sure you're the first to know.

1.5k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
Finding this cache is about as dangerous as riding your bike on a road. Do we need a helmet law for geocaching?

There is nothing wrong with this cache... at all. It's on a quite road with very little traffic. Visibility is good.

I'm still wondering how you imagine someone is going to be run over by car while attempting this cache.

Older or overweight gentleman gets down on the ground to reach in, goes to get up, feels a sudden sharp pain in his back - his back has gone out - can't get up fast enough, car full of teenagers drive by at high speed and turn him from a cacher into a pile of bloody pulp...

quote:
Please explain the scenario where this cache would cause more danger than sitting at a bus stop waiting for the ride home?

Sitting at a bus stop isn't the same as getting down on your hands and knees in the middle of a road.

I think its a bad idea to play in the street, and that its inviting trouble to encourage caches to be placed inside cattle guards.

January 21, 2003

My mom taught me not to play in the street so I think I would refrain from this cache (I would definitely stay away from this one on a foggy day). It amuses me that anyone would even think of putting a cache on a road. Even more amazing is that you have to get down on your hands and knees on the road. I'll stick to the safer caches on the side of mountains and under rocks where rattlesnakes slither.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

January 21, 2003

As long as the cache was properly described on the cache page and I didn't have to make the decision not to do it after driving all the way there, I would not have a problem with it. It is your option to do the cache or not. I would never ask anyone other than the original hider to archive a cache. Just because you are afraid does not automatically make it dangerous to all.

Yes I have finds, yes I have hides and yes I'm a charter member. My wife will not let me use our account on the forums...don't know why.

2.6k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Sitting at a bus stop isn't the same as getting down on your hands and knees in the middle of a road.

Where did you get the idea that you have to get on your hands a knees? You haven't been to the cache. I have, you bend down and pick it up. No one ever mentioned bending down and getting on your hands and knees.

The fact is cattle guards are placed on rural roads. The fact is there are warning signs around cattle guards to slow down. Driving over these things is not to different than driving over a speed bump.

So, let's go over the situation again.... you have a back country road with good views in both directions. A cattle guard that naturally causes people to slow down. And a cache that can be reached by simply bending down and picking it up.

The fact is, the coordinates took us off the road and we spent most of the time looking along a fence. Once we finally thought to look in the cattle guard we found it within a couple minutes.

The cache isn't in the middle of the road it's about 2 ft from the edge of the cattle guard. This is equivalent to where the white line on the side of the road would be.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=34564&log=y&decrypt=

Out of the 16 people that found it. Who were actually at the site and can comment on the saftey issues. One and only one person thought it was dangerous enough to make a comment.

Even those people who said there was traffic on the road never made a comment on any danger aspect of the cache.

Most called it 'clever'. People always comment on how they want 'creative' caches. But as soon as someone tries to get creative trouble is stirred up.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

1.1k · January 21, 2003

No one has ever forced me to hunt for a cache. If it looks like someplace I shouldn't be, doing something I shouldn't be doing, then I'll pass. When I was a wee tyke my momma taught me not to put my hand on the hot stove. Some people call it common sense.

But dangerous standing along side the road? What about this one:

Stone Pony

N 39° 09.195 W 107° 04.663 (WGS84)

Use waypoint: GC6DC7

No! No! I won't go! You can't make me!

4.5k · January 21, 2003

What is the speed limit through the area? How many cars might you see in an hour? How far can you see both ways down the road? Are you accident prone? I have seen cattle guards on 55 mph 2 lane highways around here but from what im seeing in the above posts, this just doesnt seem to be the case here.

If you feel it is too dangerous then by all means, pass on it! As said above, the general consensus is what counts here, and it seems most that have found it didnt have a 2nd thought about it being too dangerous.

1.5k · January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
Where did you get the idea that you have to get on your hands a knees? You haven't been to the cache. I have, you bend down and pick it up. No one ever mentioned bending down and getting on your hands and knees.

You caught me I was just trying to get a rise out of you.

I'm getting tired of trolling, perhaps I ought to stop.

January 21, 2003

Bill: Well, the road is clear, so let's get that cattle guard cache.

Bob: Righto, Bill. I'll just pull over here and we should bag it in no time.

Bill: Ha, dumb cattle. They could easily cross this if they stepped carefully. Silly animals.

Highway Patrol: Well, what's this up ahead. Two males in the road loitering around Farmer John's cattle guard. Looks suspicious. Dispatch, this Officer Cody approaching guard 32 with a possible 843 in progress. Request backup. Over.

Dispatch: Unit 14 is proceeding to your location.

HighwayPatrol: Hmmm. Those two sure stepped out of the way quickly as I approached. And...what are those black devices they are holding in their hands.

Officer Cody draws his gun and levels his aim in readiness.

Highway Patrol: Freeeeeze! Drop the weapons.

Bob: Sorry, Officer, but we ah..were...ah...just geocaching...and uh....that's a GPS, not a gun.

Bill: Yes, officer, sorry. We're not armed, but there is this geocache.

Officer cody: Get out of the road immediately and walk with your hands in the air to the side of the road with your backs to me.

Bill and Bob: Yes, sir....sorry to alarm you sir but we were just----

Officer Cody: I heard you the first time. What were you doing snooping around and peering into the cattle guard?

Bob: There is a geocache, and uh..we were just looking for it. It is a game and we use GPSs to locate it---take a look here.

Officer Cody: Looks like an ammo can or such. You planting explosives or something like that? On the ground. Hands behind your back.

And you can figure out the rest of this scenario....

David Berne

24.7k · January 21, 2003

Much to my amazement I agree with BassonPilot on this one.

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I think this cache is too dangerous only if someone holding a gun to your head forced you to do it.

If you looked for it by your own free will, then you assumed all risk.

Wherever you go there you are.

1.5k · January 21, 2003

Have any of you seen the fake cattle guards? We have a lot of them out here (in addition to real ones).. the fake ones are just lines painted across the road. From a distance, they look real to the untrained eye. Apparently the cows still think that they're real, and won't step on them.

2.7k · January 21, 2003

Not a suitable cache in my mind. This is asking for trouble. Should be archived.

January 21, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by tahoeberne:
Bill: Well, the road is clear, so let's get that cattle guard cache.

Bob: Righto, Bill. I'll just pull over here and we should bag it in no time.

Bill: Ha, dumb cattle. They could easily cross this if they stepped carefully. Silly animals.

Highway Patrol: Well, what's this up ahead. Two males in the road loitering around Farmer John's cattle guard. Looks suspicious. Dispatch, this Officer Cody approaching guard 32 with a possible 843 in progress. Request backup. Over.

Dispatch: Unit 14 is proceeding to your location.

HighwayPatrol: Hmmm. Those two sure stepped out of the way quickly as I approached. And...what are those black devices they are holding in their hands.

Officer Cody draws his gun and levels his aim in readiness.

Highway Patrol: Freeeeeze! Drop the weapons.

Bob: Sorry, Officer, but we ah..were...ah...just geocaching...and uh....that's a GPS, not a gun.

Bill: Yes, officer, sorry. We're not armed, but there is this geocache.

Officer cody: Get out of the road immediately and walk with your hands in the air to the side of the road with your backs to me.

Bill and Bob: Yes, sir....sorry to alarm you sir but we were just----

Officer Cody: I heard you the first time. What were you doing snooping around and peering into the cattle guard?

Bob: There is a geocache, and uh..we were just looking for it. It is a game and we use GPSs to locate it---take a look here.

Officer Cody: Looks like an ammo can or such. You planting explosives or something like that? On the ground. Hands behind your back.

And you can figure out the rest of this scenario....

David Berne

From experience... both myself and friends of mine have been stoped by cops in several situations that had no road involved at all.

If there is something to B17ch about I'll make sure you're the first to know.

January 21, 2003

There is a stop sign less than 100 feet after the cattle guard! Therefore people will be slowing down anyway. Now lets all go back and play like good little children and quit being tattle tales.

If there is something to B17ch about I'll make sure you're the first to know.

January 22, 2003

My first post - I need to comment on this... I have been to this cache and spent most of my time along the fence lines and turned to leave when I spotted the cache. During my search I crossed the road a few times - I spent more time crossing the road than I did retrieving the cache.

Karin

5.7k · January 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by evergreenhiker!:
Not a suitable cache in my mind. This is asking for trouble. Should be archived.

Have you been to the cache site? If not, then you really have no idea what you are talking about. I've been there, found it, and think it's just fine. No more dangerous than riding your bike on this road (which is a VERY popular bike route).

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

5.7k · January 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Have any of you seen the fake cattle guards? We have a lot of them out here (in addition to real ones).. the fake ones are just lines painted across the road. From a distance, they look real to the untrained eye. Apparently the cows still think that they're real, and won't step on them.

That gives me a funny idea. How about painting an ammo can onto the side of a rock (I know, graffitti, but ignore that part as this is just a funny idea anyway) and cachers walking up would see it and think they found the cache.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Is this cache too dangerous?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation