Dangerous Places??

January 2, 2003

I have read all the disclaimmers about dangers and other aspects of caching. In the past two days I have come across two cache sites I am not really happy about the danger aspect.

It isn't wild animals or hieghts, these caches are located unofficial garbage dumps. I would not let kids visit such places. Yesterday I was looking for a cache in an abandoned drive in theater. Trash and garbage everywhere and the cache was actually hidden in a partially demolished building. Does Groundspeak actually read the descriptions people give?

Another cache in our area is actually located off of the interstate highway, the only way to reach the cache is to pull off the roadway and walk to the woods at the edge of the interstate. Not only illegal but dangerous as well.

So what do you think? Should they be archived?

Fair winds, Capn Skully

January 2, 2003

The reasons you cited are why there is a 'cache should be archived' option when logging the cache. This will notify the admin's there might be a problem and to take a second look.

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

January 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Dekaner of Team KKF2A:
The reasons you cited are why there is a 'cache should be archived' option when logging the cache. This will notify the admin's there might be a problem and to take a second look.

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

The drive in cache actually has over 20 visits, I hate to become an outcast in a sport I just started three weeks ago. I emailed the cacher with my concerns... I would hope he would volunteer to move it.

Fair winds, Capn Skully

1k · January 2, 2003

There is no rule against placing caches in "dangerous" places per se; but the two caches you mentioned may have been placed illegally, and if so, they should be archived.

One of the radio buttons on the "Log your visit" page is "Cache should be archived". Select that button and log your reasons for requesting they be archived. The administrators will attempt to contact the cache owner(s) to get further details and resolve any concerns.

Worldtraveler

24.7k · January 2, 2003

Just because you don't like the location doesn't the cache should be archived.

Nothing strikes me about the locations you metion. I personally hate cliff edges, but then I just keep my kids back and recognize that most geocachers don't have a death wish when they hide a cache. That keeps me from doing dumb things while looking and helps narrow down the locations.

If a cache really bothers you, don't go there. You set your own limits in this sport.

Wherever you go there you are.

1.6k · January 2, 2003

"Unsafe" is relative. It really doesn't sound like the drive-in cache you mentioned should be archived. It's not really the best location, but still it's a cache and people will hunt it.

"Illegal" is a different story. If there is no way to legally log the other one you mentioned, then yes it should be archived. You shouldn't have to risk a ticket or getting creamed on the interstate to log a cache.

CR

38.2k · January 2, 2003

If anybody is on a cache hunt in a spot that they're not comfortable with, then they should just forget about it. To ask that a cache be archived because you think it might be dangerous, is presumptious. If you have issues with it, contact the owner. Perhaps they can adjust their terrain rating, or address your concerns.

There are caches that involve a level of danger. Some are on sides of cliffs and some are in high crime, urban areas. The hunter should use their judgement.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" - Abraham Lincoln

January 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
If anybody is on a cache hunt in a spot that they're not comfortable with, then they should just forget about it.

I deleted my comments from the cache listing and the cache owner can do as he pleases.

I plan to take your advice and avoid caches were I don't feel safe. I also plan to place caches where it is safe. Mostly I have been able to see some great places that I didn't know exsisted. Even in my own back yard. My cub scout troop is planning to plant a cache this weekend. You can bet it will be safe and fun!

Fair winds, Capn Skully

January 2, 2003

I think as long as the cache placer mentions the fact the cache is in a potentially dangerous place there shouldn't be a problem. Simply pick and choose your caches according to your tastes.

I have a cache called JunkPile Surprize which seems to be very popular. There's also one a bit further north of me called Farm Junk which I hope to visit soon.

I like variety when it comes to caching and I like interesting places.

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

January 2, 2003

Just move yourself on to a less dangerous cache and be happy. What is the ID for the one near the freeway? I would almost bet there is another way to the cache. Even a backyard has dangers so be careful.

1.1k · January 2, 2003

There's some caches in FL that require scuba diving.

There's some caches on islands in the Mississippi River. They require boats to get to. Current too swift, I am not a boatsman, too many mosquitos and chances of West Nile.

There's some caches in the Rocky Mountains that require mountain climbing equipment on sheer cliffs. I don't like heights.

There's a cache hidden in the desert in Iraq.

All of these are too dangerous for me so I don't try to log them. There's plenty of other caches.

January 2, 2003

Dangerous is in the eye of the beholder.

January 3, 2003

I agree that dangerous to some is exciting to others and we probably shouldn't try to make that determination. Illegal is quite another story, however. Nobody should have to park on a freeway (Interstate or otherwise) to get to a cache. Not only is it illegal and dangerous for you, it is dangerous for other motorists and we should certainly draw the line at endangering others in our pursuit of happiness.

One other thing that has bothered me since I began geocaching. It is a requirement to get permission to place a cache on private property. Is that monitored? Does www.geocaching.com maintain a file of signed permission forms? If a geocacher has obtained permission to hide a cache on private property, how do we, the hunters, know that? Does that permission to hide automatically extend permission/protection to following geocache hunters? Would that be true for all states/jurisdictions? Any lawyers out there willing to express an opinion on this?

Good Hunting! -- Graveseeker

9.1k · January 3, 2003

Please be careful before stating that a cache near an interstate or other limited access highway is "illegal" or "dangerous." Investigate alternative access routes, preferably in-person. I refer interested readers back to This Thread, in which a hider was (IMHO) unjustly accused of placing an illegal and dangerous cache near the New York State Thruway. It turned out there was a safe and fun way to access the cache, and the cache has since been expanded into a challenging multicache. In honor of that experience, I placed the "Elves in the Fast Lane" cache, which shows up on the map as being right near an expressway, yet is easily accessed through a safe and legal route.

On the other hand, if physical inspection of the cache site shows, for example, that the cache is inside of the right-of-way fence, then that should trigger an e-mail to the cache owner, followed by an archive request if a satisfactory response is not received.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

If there's no accounting for stupidity, then why do I need to file a tax return?

20.7k · January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by graveseeker:
One other thing that has bothered me since I began geocaching. It is a requirement to get permission to place a cache on private property. Is that monitored? Does http://www.geocaching.com maintain a file of signed permission forms? If a geocacher has obtained permission to hide a cache on private property, how do we, the hunters, know that? Does that permission to hide automatically extend permission/protection to following geocache hunters? Would that be true for all states/jurisdictions? Any lawyers out there willing to express an opinion on this?

It is the responsibility of the cache owner to obtain permission for a cache. Certainly, this would be permission to hide the cache and for future cachers to seek it. The website does not keep an archive of these 'permissions'. The cache owner often places a note on the cache page explaining that permission was obtained.

I think the question you are really posing deals with liability in the event of accidental injury or damage to the site. geocaching.com seems to be protected from this liability through the disclaimer. This would not necessarily protect the cache owner or land owner. Proper rating of the cache as well as disclosure of known dangers will give some protection to the land owner and cache owner in the event of injury.

Remember, however, that anyone can be sued. These disclaimers do not protect one against being sued, they only give some amount of protection against losing a lawsuit. Also, judges and juries are a fickle lot. Often cases are lost even when the evidence suggests that it should be won.

These issues have been discussed in this thread and this one.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

January 3, 2003

"Please be careful before stating that a cache near an interstate or other limited access highway is 'illegal' or 'dangerous.'"

I agree. The assumption (from the earlier post) was that the ONLY access was via the highway shoulder. If there is another way in, which I presume would be included in the details (at least in the coded hint) then the cache would certainly be appropriate.

Good Hunting! -- Graveseeker

January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by graveseeker:
"Please be careful before stating that a cache near an interstate or other limited access highway is 'illegal' or 'dangerous.'"

I agree. The assumption (from the earlier post) was that the ONLY access was via the highway shoulder. If there is another way in, which I presume would be included in the details (at least in the coded hint) then the cache would certainly be appropriate.

Good Hunting! -- Graveseeker

That is exactly what I meant... the cache is inside the fence next to the highway, the fence that is intended to keep people off of the interstate. Lots of woods but still inside the fence. Thanks again for everyone's reply. I'll stop trying to be a policeman and just enjoy the caches I like.

Fair winds, Capn Skully

1k · January 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Capn_Skully:
...I'll stop trying to be a policeman and just enjoy the caches I like...

We need to police ourselves or others with more authority and less interest in our activity will do it for us. It is an unfortunate fact that some geocachers do not use good judgment when placing caches. It will be far less restrictive for geocaching in the long run if we take the initiative to remove and archive these caches ourselves. If we ignore caches we know or strongly suspect are illegally-placed, we are tacitly condoning the placement and share in the irresponsibility of the ones who place them. And if we, as a group, prove to be irresponsible, we invite and deserve the more restrictive oversight of government authorities.

quote:
...the only way to reach the cache is to pull off the roadway and walk to the woods at the edge of the interstate...the cache is inside the fence next to the highway, the fence that is intended to keep people off of the interstate. Lots of woods but still inside the fence...

Based on your eyewitness account, this cache is at best an irresponsible placement and likely an illegal one. Either way, it should archived until/unless it is moved to a location that will not entice people to stop along the right-of-way.

Worldtraveler

January 4, 2003

Capn Skully, my suggestion would be to host a geocaching event. You'll meet other local geocachers. That will help you establish yourself as a local cacher. It will also give you a chance to talk to other cachers about various caches, including the ones you're concerned about. They may know something about them that would put your mind at ease. Or, they might take the responsibility of asking for the caches to be archived, if they need to be archived.

If nothing else, you'll have a great time.

Shannah

January 4, 2003

Still curious about the cache located near the freeway. Did you search and find the cache? If not how do you know exactly where it is? I would like to take a look at it just for S & G's.

January 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:
Still curious about the cache located near the freeway. Did you search and find the cache? If not how do you know exactly where it is? I would like to take a look at it just for S & G's.

I read the remarks from other folks that visited the cache and I did a drive by. Plus I used to live in the area.

Fair winds, Capn Skully

January 4, 2003

Still no cache ID? If you dont want to post it here email it to me.

1.4k · January 5, 2003

On the archive subject... I have been under the impression that the archive button DOES NOT actually alert the admins of the situation.

The reason I say this is that there are two caches I have used this on that CLEARLY need to be archived. I used the archive button AND sent an email to contact@geocaching.com explaining the situation and still... no archiving. One cache is actually on the property of a water treatment facility, the hint suggests you should crawl through a hole in the facilities' fence to reach the cache. It hasn't been archived despite several requests. The second is in someone's backyard in a residential subdivision. No paths to the cache are marked as public and if you are off on coordinates by even 40' you WILL be trespassing on private property. Again, despite requests to be archived using the "This cache should be archived" feature - no archiving.

When I asked around about this, I was informed that this leaves the archiving up to the cache owner and NOT the admins. If this is wrong, I'd like to know. But the point is... you can't rely on the feature. Just post a note in your log and hopefully people will use their judgement. On the two I'm speaking of, several people voiced their discontent and since then - noone has visited it. So while the archive feature has not prevented people from visiting... our informed comments have.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

January 5, 2003

I am one of those who has looked at the two caches that trippy was referring to. Those very comments have kept me from trying to find them. I generally cache alone, don't run, don't scuba, don't rock climb, etc. But I do find plenty of caches to keep me very happy hunting.

I was scouting out a location along the expressway the other day. I may put one in a rest area and one along a service drive. So they can be placed safely. If they don't look safe, I drive on.

January 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Capn_Skully:
I have read all the disclaimmers about dangers and other aspects of caching. In the past two days I have come across two cache sites I am not really happy about the danger aspect. ... Does Groundspeak actually read the descriptions people give?

Oh, lots of us think the standards for cache approval are far too low.

I think we should alert the administrators about caches we believe to be exceedingly dangerous, but it's up to us to use our heads and "just say no" when we unwittingly find ourselves doing a cache like that.

quote:
Originally posted by Capn_Skully:

So what do you think? Should they be archived?

Yup, but they shouldn't have been approved in the first place.

January 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:

We need to police ourselves or others with more authority and less interest in our activity will do it for us. It is an unfortunate fact that some geocachers do not use good judgment when placing caches. It will be far less restrictive for geocaching in the long run if we take the initiative to remove and archive these caches ourselves. If we ignore caches we know or strongly suspect are illegally-placed, we are tacitly condoning the placement and share in the irresponsibility of the ones who place them. And if we, as a group, prove to be irresponsible, we invite and deserve the more restrictive oversight of government authorities.

I agree 100%.

6.4k · January 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GeoPrincess:

Oh, lots of us think the standards for cache approval are far too low.

I think we should alert the administrators about caches we believe to be exceedingly dangerous, but it's up to us to use our heads and "just say no" when we unwittingly find ourselves doing a cache like that.

And just what is "exceedingly dangerous" for a cache? A cache half way down the side of a 300ft cliff is not "exceedingly dangerous" for someone with the proper training and equipment. A mile long hike might be "exceedingly dangerous" for someone with a heart condition. A 300ft park and grab in a field could be "exceedingly dangerous" for someone using a walker after a heavy rain.

Who should decide what caches are too dangerous? YOU SHOULD! The admins here have no idea what your physical condition or level of training is, what's "exceedingly dangerous" for you, is simple and safe for me. if you find a cache that exceeds your capabilities, don't do it. Nobody if forcing you to attempt it.

quote:
Originally posted by Capn_Skully:

So what do you think? Should they be archived?

quote:
Originally posted by GeoPrincess:
Yup, but they shouldn't have been approved in the first place.

Yes they should have been, and I'm glad they are. If you want to archive every cache that might possibly be dangerous to someone, then the only cache left on the site will be this one.

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

January 5, 2003

quote:
One cache is actually on the property of a water treatment facility, the hint suggests you should crawl through a hole in the facilities' fence to reach the cache.

The second is in someone's backyard in a residential subdivision. No paths to the cache are marked as public and if you are off on coordinates by even 40' you WILL be trespassing on private property.

It's interesting that we are discussing 'dangerous' caches and yet neither of the caches in question are inherrently dangerous. Even if they were, I am perfectly capable of evaluating the dangers ad making a rational decision based on my abilities and my equipment. Illegal, possibly, but not dangerous. If you slip on the rocks and break a leg, then that is a chance you take and you should have been better prepared (proper clothing/shoes, notifying somebody of your planned route, signaling mirror, cell phone, radio, etc.)

If, on the other hand, you get arrested for trespassing while climbing through that hole in the fence, then the cache should not have been there in the first place. To me, the legality of a cache is a good deal more important than the danger level which I am perfectly capable of evaluating. Is there permission to crawl through that fence? Is the private property fenced/posted? If the answers are yes and no, then there is no foul and the caches are just fine.

It is beyond reason to expect our leaders to maintain permission forms for every cache requiring them but I would like to see a check block indicating that written permission was received and that it is available upon request from the individual who placed the cache. I'm no lawyer but I would think that checking that box would place a certain legal responsibility. If there is no form and somebody gets arrested (or shot!) there would be legal recourse against the cache placer and so should provide some comfort level as you crawl through a hole in a fence or pass through a gate.

Good Hunting! -- Graveseeker

January 5, 2003

quote:
Yup, but they shouldn't have been approved in the first place.

Why not Assuming permission was granted to crawl through the fence and that the second cache is not on that private property 40' away, I see no reason that they shouldn't have been approved.

Good Hunting! -- Graveseeker

1.4k · January 5, 2003

Permission was not granted for the fence crawl. If you were caught and the police were called, you'd probably be in a whole LOT of trouble. It's a water treatment facility and IMHO it falls well within the geocaching.com guideline of

"Caches will be quickly archived if we see the following: Caches under public structures deemed targets for terrorist attacks" I think it should include 'on the property of' and/or 'near'

I'm quite sure the guy has /permission/ to place the other cache, but again - it goes back to common sense and the welfare of other cachers. There is a high probability that you will trespass to get to it. Even if you managed not to trespass while trekking to it, it's still located on a 3' wide access path sandwiched between about 20 residential lots that leads you down behind about 5-10 people's back yards. Go down behind people's houses and start rooting around and it's just a matter of time before we see a headline like "Geocacher Confused for Burglar in Residential Subdivision. Again." How many run-ins with cops do you guys want to have? I'm trying to keep mine at a minimum. Not only this, but we've contacted the cache owner with locations on public lands that are not even 1/4 mile away. The whole thing could be solved by moving the caches 1000 feet or so.

It's just a safety and common sense issue. Asking/telling someone to tresspass and in one of your original hints saying "Expect to be challenged for being there." is just really, really, bad form. Especially when there are people working to keep geocaching an open and welcome activity in their states. I think when caches like these endanger the welfare of cachers and the longevity of the sport - it's more than reasonable to put your foot down.

And just so everyone knows, I didn't originally request these be archived. I spoke with all the other cachers that had been to the cache site, spoke with others in the MiGO community about it, tried to mentor the owner and encourage them to come caching with me and to find a new location for their caches (they are GOOD caches... but BAD locations). Every effort has been made to help this person make their caches more accessible, but nothing has been done.

So if you see something that really disturbs you, you might:

Open a FRIENDLY dialog with the owner about it

Talk to fellow cachers to get a consensus on the situation. Perhaps you are too new or have the wrong POV on a cache.

If the community believes there are problems with the cache, do what you can to help.

Contact the owner, indicate others feel there is a problem as well. I know that if /I/ hide a cache (which I'm going to do today) and there's a problem with it... I want to know. I WANT VISITORS

That's the fun of placing a cache.

If the owner is still unwilling to do anything, you might want to involve your local or state organization to see if there is any way they can influence or mentor the owner.

If all else fails, and the archive feature doesn't actually go to the admins... the best you can do is leave your comments on the situation, encourage others to do so, and hopefully your comments will solve the situation all on its own. Make sure you do not use confrontational language in the post and DO include many details. Just saying "This should be archived" is not going to prevent a lot of people from going. "This should be archived because as I got closer a jeep load of Military Police jumped out, pinned me to the ground, and took me to a secret bunker for twenty nine hours of interrogation." sure will.

P.S. I think of caches that are going to get people arrested/into trouble as 'dangerous'. Having a felony on your record is just as bad as breaking your wrist

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

[This message was edited by trippy1976 on January 05, 2003 at 11:39 AM.]

January 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:
P.S. I think of caches that are going to get people arrested/into trouble as 'dangerous'. Having a felony on your record is just as bad as breaking your wrist

Dan"ger*ous, a. [OE., haughty, difficult, dangerous, fr. OF. dangereus, F. dangereux. See Danger.] 1. Attended or beset with danger; full of risk; perilous; hazardous; unsafe.

Yes I agree that it may be dangerous in that respect. But the use of common sense by the cache seeker will if used properly eliminate the danger by choosing not to seek such caches.

A good dose of common sense by the cache hider would also help provide a safer caching environment. As for having to climb through a hole in a fence at a water treatment plant I would have to say common sense was probably not used. But that can even be pushed to the owners/maintainers of the plant. If it needs fixed, fix it. Especially if there is a concern for public safety.

I have not read the cache descriptions for any of the mentioned caches (none posted). If the text included "water treatment plant" and "crawl through hole in fence" I would have to say shame on the approvers. Thats not to say the text was fine at approval and then modified after approval.

If I am trying to make a point I guess it would be. The cache seeker has a responsibility to determine if the cache is "safe" for them. If a cache seeker gets to a point during a search where they feel uncomfortable searching then that may be a good time to call it off (common sense).

So as a cache seeker I put all the safety/legality issues on myself. If I have done my part I will not put have myself in a situation that I should not be in.

Just my opinion and we all know what they are like. Everybody has one...

January 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Who should decide what caches are too dangerous? YOU SHOULD!

Hey genius, isn't that what I said?

January 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Capn_Skully:
I have read all the disclaimmers about dangers and other aspects of caching. In the past two days I have come across two cache sites I am not really happy about the danger aspect.

From your profile,''I have ideas for some great boat only caches!''

Some of us are not too keen on boat only caches. This is indeed, special equipment and greatly reduces the teams that are able to access it. My point is that it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Live and let live and let the logs reflect the quality and opinions of a cache.

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

January 7, 2003

quote:
From your profile,''I have ideas for some great boat only caches!''

Some of us are not too keen on boat only caches. This is indeed, special equipment and greatly reduces the teams that are able to access it. My point is that it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Live and let live and let the logs reflect the quality and opinions of a cache.

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

Sir you are so right! I haven't done anything about any of the caches I was concerned about. In fact I retracted my note I posted. I did contact the owner of the drive-in cache. He didn't respond, the owner of the interstate cache can't be contacted because he didn't provide an email.

Also I haven't placed any boat only caches, there are several in my area. I thought about them, but when I thought of someone in a small canoe trying to access them on a rough day they wouldn't be too safe either.

I was asking a question as to how others feel about my concerns. I find now my concerns are unfounded and I feel foolish for bringing them up. I am not going to scale a cliff face to find a cache and again that is because of my fears and lack of skill not a bash against a fellow cacher.

How many of you here could sail a small boat? To the Bahamas? There is a cache out there, I plan to be the first to log it. I plan to get there in a 25 foot sailboat carrying only 3 gallons of gasoline.

I appreciate everyone's opinion, that is what I was seeking a better understanding. I have only been doing this a month... so who am I to criticize?

Thanks again...

Fair winds, Capn Skully

January 7, 2003

I have nothing to add to the current discussion because I think it's been pretty well covered. I however have a question about obtaining permission to place. If there is an area that is private property, but you have no idea who owns the property, then how can one find the owner to get the permission. Example: A wooded area in a field with no houses around. Is there somewhere you can go, like the library, to look up property records? Also how would one do this if there is no "address" for the parcel of land..I mean how would you know that you're looking at the correct owner for the correct piece of land?

I'm not being a jerk or anything, I truly want to know so I can be legit on all of my caches.

Mr. 0

"Remember that nature and the elements are neither your friend or your enemy - they are actually disinterested."

Department of the Army Field Manual FM 21-76 "Survival" Oct. 1970

January 7, 2003

Typically the county court house has records of all land transactions and owners. Usually helps to know local landmarks or benchmarks to help locate the property exactly.

This part I know.. cause I am in records management!

Fair winds, Capn Skully

2k · January 8, 2003

I have planted several caches that I consider on the dangerous side, as a result I warn cachers of the dangers that may be involved so they can make their own decision whether they want to visit or not. I think this should be considered whenever a person sets a cache.

Lost? Keep going. You're making good time anyway!!

Dangerous Places??

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

Join the conversation