Jump to content

Cache Location Concerns?


dzdiver

Recommended Posts

Recently my wife and I were visiting an area and did some geocaching. We came across a cache location that caused some concern. The cache was described as being a micro with historical significance. It did contain a warning not to attempt the cache at night. Previous logs showed that the site may have been a transient camp at one time.

 

Upon arriving at the location I quickly decided that this was a higher than normal crime rate area for this city. The location was an old abandoned building in a commercial area. The building was near highway overpasses. After taking some precautions for physical safety in event of an encounter with a criminal, we approached the building. We saw signs that the area is still frequented by transients. We saw human waste, broken beer bottles, and drug paraphenelia on the ground. The place was also an eyesore with trash, no yard maintenance, etc. Just as we were deciding that scoring another cache wasn't worth the health risks present at the location, my wife found the container. We logged our visit.

 

An on-duty LE Officer stopped by just as we were getting ready to leave. I identified myself as an off-duty Officer from outp-of-the area and explained our reason for being at the location. He told me that he stopped by when he saw us. He said that he thought that we were tourists and were lost. He was concerned for our safety. He then told me that the area was a problem area for transients, assaults, etc. He said that he didn't think the location was suitable for a family themed game. We had a brief but nice talk with him about geocaching and we all left.

 

After we returned home, I thought long and hard about how to log this cache. My wife and I have found about 135 caches so far and have never come across a location as bad as this one. I didn't think that the cache page adequately described the hazards of the location. I honestly didn't think that the location should be a cache, but felt that it wasn't up to me to decide. I logged our find and went on to describe the hazards. I described our visit with the LE Officer and his explanation of the hazards. I stated my opinion that the location was not suitable for families or children.

 

I also sent an email to the cache owner telling him in more detail that I thought the cache location was inappropriate. I kept all of my comments in my email and log professional.

 

He sent back a response that basically stated that everyone makes their own risk assessments and I don't have to do it. He also deleted my log.

 

I agree that everyone should be able to take as little or as much risk as they would like within reason. I do rather extreme sea kayaking, have SCUBA dived in very dangerous conditions, and have made several skydives. I don't want anyone telling me that I shouldn't do those things. But, I did make INFORMED decisions about each.

 

When the cache owner deleted my log and didn't update the cache page with the present conditions, I felt that he did this community a disservice. I also felt slighted as I put a good deal of effort into my log.

 

The reason for this post is to get feedback from this community. What should I do if anything? Nothing at all? I have sent an email in an attempt to contact the cache approvers for that area. Any and all feedback is appreciated.

 

DZDIVER

Edited by dzdiver
Link to comment

I also work in law enforcement and I base my cache hides on what I know about the area. There are several parks in the northern (risky) part of my town that would be great to hide a cache in. However, I would not hide caches there because I know these parks are frequented by transients, drug users, prostitutes, etc.

 

I don't have children but I know that a lot of people take their kids caching and a lot of people (including me) cache alone sometimes.

 

Why add unnecessary risk to a fun hobby? I would feel terrible if someone went to find a cache in a bad area and got hurt, mugged, etc.

 

Just because one person feels completely comfortably hiding/hunting a cache in a transient camp, doesn't mean we all feel that way.

 

If the hider intends on keeping the cache in that location, I would certainly feel like some kind of warning about the area would be the considerate thing to do.

 

Just my two cents! ;)

Link to comment

If you kept a copy of the log that was deleted, and of the email sent to you by the cache owner who deleted the log, I would send those to the cache approvers. For the sake of courtesy, I would CC the cache owner as well.

 

You don't want to create hard feelings if it is avoidable, but:

 

1. You have genuine concerns about the safety of the cache.

2. From reading your post, you have the background to be able to make reasonable judgements about the safety of a given situation.

3. The cache owner is apparently unwilling to address those concerns.

 

If the cache approvers review the information that you send and decide to leave the cache as is, then so be it. If they request that additional information be added to the cache page, then so be it. In my opinion, they should be informed of your concerns. No one is well-served if a cache is an unfortunate event waiting to happen.

 

FWIW.

 

SkinGuy

Link to comment

I'm sorry, but I recommend that the cache be archived. You can check that box. Include in the reason all the information you have gathered. There's enough bad publicity about geocaching with adding more. That worst thing that could happen to geocaching is for somebody to get hurt because a geocache in such an unsafe place.

 

By recommending archiving and including all the information you allow GC.com to make the final decission.

 

Byron

Link to comment

Dzdiver,

 

I would have to say that you are in the right. As for taking additional action, I suggest writing to the cache approvers your concerns.

 

As for the cache owner, I think it was irresponsible to delete and dismiss references about the neighborhood. The cache owner is right that each cacher needs to assess the risks involved. But to deliberately remove information that may allow a cacher to make this decision prior to approaching the neighborhood, is just plain irresponsible.

Link to comment

I agree. You did the right thing to warn prospective cache seekers about what they would be getting into. Deleting your log entry was an irresponsible action by the owner. In my opinion the "This cache should be archived" option should be used very sparingly, but this sounds like one of those rare times when it is appropriate.

Link to comment

Thanks for your feedback! I exercised the "Needs to be archived" option. The cache owner deleted the log with that archive request. Soon afterwards, I noticed that the owner has modified the cache page to specifically state that the cache is not appropriate for children or pets. He also warns of transient traffic and alcohol. I did previously notify the GC.com admin of my concerns about the site. Thank You!

Edited by dzdiver
Link to comment

You did the right thing, dzdiver. In my case, I cache with my daughter 75% of the time. I appreciate when people leave notes in their logs about places that might not be appropriate to take her with me. Heck, sounds like a place I wouldn't even want to go to by myself, let alone with a child. For the owner to delete that tidbit of information that you shared in order to give someone the heads up about the area the cache is hidden in, well, that just makes me mad. If it was me, I probably wouldn't do anymore of that persons cache hides after the lack of concern shown for the safety of cache visitors.

Link to comment

While I don't have kids to worry about, knowing that others DO would obligate me to respond in a manner as you did. And echoing what others have implied, while it's up to each person to assess each cache and make their decisions accordingly, there's no reason to place a cache in a dangerous area without being VERY explicit about the risks. You handled it very appropriately, but you can only do so much when the other person wants to respond in a childish manner...

Link to comment

I enjoy those caches for exactly the reasons you didn't. The cache isn't broken.

 

Your assessent of the area as you described it in your post would make for a good log. Making the decision that the cache is not appropriate though should be taken for what it really is. Not appropriate for you. Dissing the cache owner didn't do any good in the greater scheme of things and a log that would help others decide to go to the cache or not is now archived from the viewable logs and does nobody any good.

 

You clearly have a good eye and provide information that others could use in seeking out the cache. If you would of left out the judgment call your log would probably still be there and others would enjoy reading it and avoiding the cache. For the record I know I'm in the minority in enjoying caches that show off the seedier parts of life that I never see otherwise.

Link to comment
For the record I know I'm in the minority in enjoying caches that show off the seedier parts of life that I never see otherwise.

I'm with you on this. Trashy spots actually make for more clever places to place them than pristine areas in many cases. I've hidden more than one cache in what could be considered to be lousy by most--case in point--and actually gotten positive feedback the overwhelming majority of the time.

 

In such cases, however, it is incumbent upon the cache owner to make the cachers fully aware of any risks to which they may be exposed.

Link to comment
Thanks for your feedback! I exercised the "Needs to be archived" option. The cache owner deleted the log with that archive request. Soon afterwards, I noticed that the owner has modified the cache page to specifically state that the cache is not appropriate for children or pets. He also warns of transient traffic and alcohol. I did previously notify the GC.com admin of my concerns about the site. Thank You!

Sounds like at least part of the problem was solved. Now people can make a judgment from home before heading to the crime scene..uh, I mean cache site. One question: did you get your find back? If not I would definitely log it again. Simply write: "TNLNSL DPM"

Link to comment

As long as the owner describes the risks on the cache page and potential seekers can make informed choices whether or not to hunt it, I don't see a problem with caches like that one. All cache hunts have varying degrees of risk, but when the risks are out of the ordniary, whether its a high crime area, or a cliff face, they should be mentioned on the page.

 

What is unacceptable is the cache owner deleting your legit "found it" log because it contained your negative assessment of the situation. Deleting legit logs is unconscionable when its done to sanitize the logs and remove information that might be useful to future hunters and allow them to decide whether or not to hunt the cache.

Link to comment

I received a response from GC.com admin today. They requested more information from me about the situation. I appreciate the administration's concern regarding the cache location and situation.

 

I have been able to keep a "Found Log" for the cache. Simply states that the log was found and logged.

 

A search of forum postings for the cache owner shows no forum postings. Those of you who "were concerned" because I recently found a cache of yours, are NOT the problem!

 

DZDIVER

Link to comment
I enjoy those caches for exactly the reasons you didn't.  The cache isn't broken. 

 

Your assessent of the area as you described it in your post would make for a good log.  Making the decision that the cache is not appropriate though should be taken for what it really is.

 

He didn't make a decision. He didnt submit to the Gc.com folks and say "archive this"

 

Dissing the cache owner didn't do any good in the greater scheme of things and a log that would help others decide to go to the cache or not is now archived from the viewable logs and does nobody any good.

 

no dissing took palce in the log. only here. welld eserving dissing if you ask me.

 

I didn't think that the cache page adequately described the hazards of the location. I honestly didn't think that the location should be a cache, but felt that it wasn't up to me to decide.

 

See? he even says its not his decision

 

I logged our find and went on to describe the hazards. I described our visit with the LE Officer and his explanation of the hazards. I stated my opinion that the location was not suitable for families or children.

 

I also sent an email to the cache owner telling him in more detail that I thought the cache location was inappropriate. I kept all of my comments in my email and log professional.

 

He was professional. he stated his opinion on the lack of description and hazzards. in what way is this log any different from a person stating that the ache is located close to poison ivy, or that the hunter thought the terrain was more difficult then the rating given?

 

Furthermore, how is anyone to make an informed decision about whether or not to approach it, when the cache owner clearly can't handle criticism? And even further, how would you know anything about this cache and decide "hey this is right up my alley" if this log weren't there? seems as if his log would benefit you, taking you to Quote "seedier parts of life that I never see otherwise"? unquote.

 

the inappripriate action here is the deletion of the log, not the log in question. We can argue about whether or not the cache is appropriate, but the deletion of the log? That was just wrong. the placer needs to grow up.

 

As for the hunter in this case, definately use the "cache needs to be archived"

 

and furthermore (thats 3 furthermores) I read this rule.

 

Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

 

Could this cache be violating that rule I wonder?

Edited by Gwho
Link to comment

You know, a few years ago I rented a car with "Neverlost," which I thought was the most wonderful thing--until it led me directly into the single worst part of NYC late at night. At the time I thought, if something should happen to me--two words: hefty settlement. Which leads me to wonder about the thorny legal issues surrounding cache placement. If the cache owner leads someone to a very bad neighborhood, with no warning on the cache page, aren't they opening themselves up to punitive damages?

Link to comment

I guess anyone can sue anyone (and it seems to be the case more and more), but on each cache page is the following:

 

Note:To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer.

 

On that page it says, in big bold letters:

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

There's also verbiage related to gc.com specifically. With that said, as I posted above, I think the original poster did the right think in bringing this cache to the attention of the approvers.

Edited by Team DEMP
Link to comment

Upon arriving at the location I quickly decided that this was a higher than normal crime rate area for this city.

...

An on-duty L(aw) E(nforcement) Officer stopped by just as we were getting ready to leave. 

...

I identified myself as an off-duty Officer

...

He was concerned for our safety.

...

He then told me that the area was a problem area for transients, assaults, etc.

 

It seems to me thet the high points are here. Dzdiver seems more than qualified to assess a situation that would be likely to be dangerous to most of us. It's not only his opinion, however, but that of a local officer who knows the area. I think that he's done exactly the correct thing from start-to-end. Once he provides additional information to the admins they'll make an informed decision after corresponding with the cache owner and either let it stand or archive it. I think it irresponsible for the hider to deliberately conceal the nature of the area where the cache is placed. Of course, he's apparently rectified that now after additional heat was applied. (Since the cache in question hasn't been idenified it's difficult to know whether the recently added admonition adequately describes the situation.)

 

As for the warning listed on geocaching.com,

 

Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache.

 

Of course. Naturally. If I fall out of the boat and drown while trying for a cache, or attempt a climb for which I may be neither qualified nor in shape for, or get hit by a bus because I refuse to take my eyes off the dang arrow on my GPSr, or, or, ..., then it's my responsibility, that which I knowingly and willingly accept. To be led, however, without warning into an area which is inherently dangerous (a fact that I may not realize until already in harm's way!) is another matter entirely. Caches that present specific, known challenges and dangers are (nearly) always identified as such by the presence of 3, 4, or 5 stars along with explanatory text. To give a cache few stars and no explanation or warning when danger exists could be construed as a deliberate act to bring unsuspecting people into an unsafe area. From some of the responses I'd get the impression that a simple "This is an urban cache in an interesting location." would be adequate.

 

I know I'm in the minority in enjoying caches that show off the seedier parts of life that I never see otherwise.

 

That's fine and you're welcomed to them. If promised "an interesting location" I'd expect a statue, historic building, interesting architecture, great view, or the like. The last thing I'd expect to find is a homeless camp, human waste, broken glass, etc. Again, having not seen the actual cache page it's difficult to say and one can only generalize.

 

I think that it's fair to say that geocaching is, generally speaking, a family-friendly activity and I suspect that is an image that the folks at Groundspeak would like to maintain and encourage. I'd hate to see an article added to the news section of geocaching.com with the headline "Father and Daughter Mugged Whle Playing High-tech Game In Seedy Area!" And all the disclaimers, warnings, and admonitions notwithstanding, I have no doubt that a victim of a careless cache owner (or the victim's next of kin) would have no problem at all in our litigous society finding legal representation - And I promise you, they'd go for everyone in sight. Groundspeak, the admin who approved the cache, and the cache owner - for starters. It would be nothing less than a disaster for the sport.

 

For those that seek caches it's best to be as informed as possible before you go and understand (as far as possible) any potential risks.

 

For those that hide caches it's important to make those who will seek them aware of any conditions that might present greater-than-average risks or challenges.

 

So let's all have fun and be careful out there!

Link to comment
...He didn't make a decision. He didnt submit to the Gc.com folks and say "archive this"

...He was professional. he stated his opinion on the lack of description and hazzards. in what way is this log any different from a person stating that the ache is located close to poison ivy, or that the hunter thought the terrain was more difficult then the rating given?

 

Furthermore, how is anyone to make an informed decision about whether or not to approach it, when the cache owner clearly can't handle criticism? And even further, how would you know anything about this cache and decide "hey this is right up my alley" if this log weren't there? seems as if his log would benefit you, taking you to Quote "seedier parts of life that I never see otherwise"? unquote.

 

the inappripriate action here is the deletion of the log, not the log in question. We can argue about whether or not the cache is appropriate, but the deletion of the log? That was just wrong. the placer needs to grow up.

 

As for the hunter in this case, definately use the "cache needs to be archived"

 

and furthermore (thats 3 furthermores) I read this rule.

 

Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

 

Could this cache be violating that rule I wonder?

Gwho, you have a lot more patience for those quote qizmo's than I do. So I'll keep this short and without fancy quotes.

 

1) His opinion was that the cache was inappropriate. He emailed the cache owner that it was inappropriate, and posted in the forums that it's inapropriate. That's close enough to a decision for me.

 

2) Everything in this country over 50 years old is potentially historic plus a few things less than 50 years old. Only some things though have merit and only a few of those have protection or should have protection. Sometimes a delapidated building may need attention drawn to it to being about the interest that could prove it has merit. Who knows? Most of those archaological sites are kept secret so I don't worry about them since they won't tell me where not to go. I can tell you this, your favorite outdoor spots are probably archiological sites.

 

3) His log shouldn't of been deleted as it did have a lot of good information and as you pointed out it was professional. I agree with you here.

 

4) Come on, archive this cache? The only true problem with the cache is the owner deleting the logs where people tell it like it is.

Link to comment
...I think that it's fair to say that geocaching is, generally speaking, a family-friendly activity and I suspect that is an image that the folks at Groundspeak would like to maintain and encourage. I'd hate to see an article added to the news section of geocaching.com with the headline "Father and Daughter Mugged Whle Playing High-tech Game In Seedy Area!" And all the disclaimers, warnings, and admonitions notwithstanding, I have no doubt that a victim of a careless cache owner (or the victim's next of kin) would have no problem at all in our litigous society finding legal representation - And I promise you, they'd go for everyone in sight. Groundspeak, the admin who approved the cache, and the cache owner - for starters. It would be nothing less than a disaster for the sport...

Geocaching is as family friendly as the world we live in. Given that families can and do live in the seedy areas, in homeless camps and in the house on the hill with 12 acres of lawn you can and should expect to experience all the world that geocachers who place caches live, work and play in. It's as simple as that.

 

What it comes down to is that people who are unwilling to exercise judgement on what caches they will enjoy seem to want to pass judgment on what’s acceptable. I'm convinced if they can't exercise it they sure as heck can't pass it.

Link to comment
...I think that it's fair to say that geocaching is, generally speaking, a family-friendly activity and I suspect that is an image that the folks at Groundspeak would like to maintain and encourage.  I'd hate to see an article added to the news section of geocaching.com with the headline "Father and Daughter Mugged Whle Playing High-tech Game In Seedy Area!" And all the disclaimers, warnings, and admonitions notwithstanding, I have no doubt that a victim of a careless cache owner (or the victim's next of kin) would have no problem at all in our litigous society finding legal representation - And I promise you, they'd go for everyone in sight. Groundspeak, the admin who approved the cache, and the cache owner - for starters. It would be nothing less than a disaster for the sport...

Geocaching is as family friendly as the world we live in. Given that families can and do live in the seedy areas, in homeless camps and in the house on the hill with 12 acres of lawn you can and should expect to experience all the world that geocachers who place caches live, work and play in. It's as simple as that.

 

What it comes down to is that people who are unwilling to exercise judgement on what caches they will enjoy seem to want to pass judgment on what’s acceptable. I'm convinced if they can't exercise it they sure as heck can't pass it.

Agreed on all points. So long as they are given enough information to exercise that judgement before they find themselves in trouble (never mind having the information deliberately withheld). In Dzdiver's case he was caching away from home and couldn't necessarily have been expected to know that a particular area would be dangerous without some sort of caveat from the cache owner. It's possible that the "locals" know the area and are staying away in droves - but again, without specific information about the cache it's a generalization.

Edited by BillP3rd
Link to comment

The major point I can make here is all cache seekers should aware of their surroundings at all times.

 

The original poster identified the area as seedy before entering the building, probably before he even stopped the car. He even took "some precautions for physical safety" which probably meant carrying.

 

I'm not saying this is a wonderful cache. I'm not like RK, I don't appreciate caches like this. I do know to always keep my eyes open and if I don't feel comfortable then I keep driving.

 

OTOH, I do know there are people who go through life with blinders on. They wouldn't have given it a second thought to drive up, jump out and walk right on in without the first thought of personal safety. For those people, I would strongly suggest that cache owners bring to the forefront an awareness that their cache has more risk to personal safety than normal. These issue is not addressed in the ratings and should be made in the description.

 

Alerting seekers to personal safety issues of this nature should be considered good form, not a requirement.

 

Deleting legitimate logs is never okay for any reason I can think of. Retaliatory deletion of logs should be handled severely up to and including the banning of the cache owner in question depending on their past history. With this hanging over people's head folks will be less likely to retaliate in such a manner--after all, there is the encrypt function.

Link to comment

It's too bad that your original log got deleted, I for one, definitely would have appreciated it. Looking at the other logs on the page they don't give as much of a hint as to how bad the area really is. One or two mention the 'transient camp' but make it sound like they have moved on. I know that since I usually cache alone or with my young daughter that I would've loved to have gotten the 'heads-up' that it is one that I probably should skip. (or at least sucker some poor sap into going with me to check it out. :blink:)

 

On the brightside your efforts have not been wasted... The cache page at least now does have a 'warning' on it so maybe future cachers can think twice or at least bring company.

 

It does appear that others have enjoyed it but I applaud you for your honesty.

Link to comment

For my caches if there's more significant danger about the surroundings than a typical walk in the park I tend to highlight it on the cache page like this:

 

WARNING: The trail is bordered on both sides by private property upon which hunting is known to take place. Be careful walking this trail during hunting season.

 

I think it's just plain nice to let people know things about the cache site that they should know before they get there. Heck, I'm even nice enough to warn people when it might be EXTRA mucky in that they might want to bring hip-waders.

Link to comment

"Cache seekers assume all risks for seeking a cache" although this statement appears steadfast, I hardly think it gives a license to cache hiders place a cache in a minefield.

 

Cache hiders in general, should be asking themselves. Would I want to look for a cache at the area in question? Is there something at this location that is worthy of attention? This IMO would cut down on "lame" caches and make hunting for caches enjoyable for most.

Link to comment

There are many caches in the "lack of luster, undesireable location" catagory. As the sport grows, we are going to see a wider range of personalities and personal boundries associated with caching. While most people would ask "why would he place it there in the first place?"; some may try to grab the cache simply for the numbers. This is unfortunate, but we humans are competitive, why do you think are near the top of the food chain? On one hand you can say, OK, place your cache anywhere you like, but warn everyone about the hazards/ on the other hand; perhaps people should really look at the whole reason for placing it in the first place? Is it an area that the common person would find interesting? Are the hazards worth the reward? It's all a matter of opinion. Going with that theme, the following are my opinions (as a Fireman, former State Police officer, and a father) I believe my opinion should have a little bit merit to it.., #1 Deleting the logs to maintain a sugar-coated apperance is wrong by any standard. #2 Placing a cache in a crime/ drug infested scumbag hangout is totally innapropriate for Geocaching. #3 Hazards are a possibility in Geocaching. (However, I prefer my hazards to be mountain lions, lightning, dehydration, falling, etc. much better than being stuck by an HIV infected neddle or being murdered for the 5 bucks in your wallet). Again, still my opinion, but last I check we all had the right to have one.. :lol:

Link to comment
The major point I can make here is all cache seekers should aware of their surroundings at all times.

 

Alerting seekers to personal safety issues of this nature should be considered good form, not a requirement.

 

Deleting legitimate logs is never okay for any reason I can think of. Retaliatory deletion of logs should be handled severely up to and including the banning of the cache owner in question depending on their past history. With this hanging over people's head folks will be less likely to retaliate in such a manner--after all, there is the encrypt function.

I agree with CoyoteRed but, tourist cachers won't necessarily know what part or town is seedy. While we need to be aware of what's going on around us, sometimes that gets lost in the excitement of the find.

As far as punishing retaliatory log deletions, I completely agree. If the cacher met the requirements of the find and were courteous in their log then the cache owner should punished severely as you said. :lol:

 

Quote: PandyBat @ Jun 18 2004, 05:13 AM

I am wondering what the cache owner thought was the attraction of this cache.

 

Maybe he lives there and doesn't recognize the danger. :unsure:

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...