Dangerous Caches

[+Lone Star Drifter]

Are they worth the risk? I was in Waco, Texas last week and I found 16 caches while there. One of the caches stated, may want to bring first aid kit and cell phone because there is a good chance of falling and injuring yourself.

 

COME ON !!!! You have got to be kidding me. When a volunteer of the state approves these caches does he actually read the cache description. Personally, I wouldn't approve these types of caches.

 

I visited this cache and it was a joke, I said to myself there is no way I'm going down there. This cache, which I will protect the identy of needed a harness and a professional rock climber.

 

I WANT YOUR OPINON, GO AHEAD SPEAK FREELY.

[+nittany dave]

Personally, I wouldn't approve these types of caches.

Then I'm glad you are not a reviewer for my area.

 

As long as the cache page clearly spells out the risks, I see no problem with caches that require special equipment, climbing, crawling, diving, etc.

 

I visited this cache and it was a joke, I said to myself there is no way I'm going down there.

Seeking it is your decision and yours alone. If it is too risky for you, or you do not have access to the equipment needed, don't do it. It sounds as if you made the correct decision for you.

[+Lone Star Drifter]

Sounds like you made a correcto decision for you.

 

Thanks !!!!!!!

[+Jamie Z]

Rather, I'd prefer that all caches be of the "dangerous" type.

 

Maybe not truly dangerous, but I'd much rather hunt a cache where there is a possibilty that I might fall down a hill, or bang my head on a rock, or otherwise risk personal injury.

 

Frankly, I'm pretty bored of the caches where I can drive up and touch my car and the cache at the same time. I just can't imagine why people hide those.

 

Besides, for pretty much any cache that has a significant terrain rating, it's not a bad idea to have a first aid kit along. You shouldn't have to have the cache placer tell you that.

 

Jamie

[+Lone Star Drifter]

I have to agree with you about the number of caches out there that you can just about touch the cache and your car. I am fairly new at this whole geocaching thing and I certainly don't want to step on any toes. I am mainly doing this to learn more what others like, so I can place more caches that are interesting to others.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Seems that the cache page clearly spelled out the danger.

 

I did one that was on the edge of a cliff recently. The cache page said it was dangerous and with the wind blowing hard it certainly was. But I enjoyed it.

 

I could have walked away.

[+Spencersb]

As long as the cache page provides fair warning, the terrain rating is appropriately high, and the dangers are self evident ("oh I forgot to mention the buried land mines you might find if you get off the paved walkway"), then I don't have a problem with caches in risky areas. You could place one halfway down the side of a 1000' cliff that you have to rapel down to, as long as you tell people what it is and that you need climbing gear to get it.

 

The cache hider has the responsibility to warn of any reasonably known dangers. The cache hunter is responsible for his/her own safety, knowing his/her limitations, etc. A little common sense on BOTH sides would go a long way.

[+Renegade Knight]

In geocahcing like real life you have to use your judgment. If the cache is beyond your skill, then it's up to you to walk way.

 

There should be no resriction on cache placment for the reason of 'safety'. I dont do rock climibing caches, or scuba caches because I don't have the training. There are caches I walk away from.

 

The owner didn't kill themselves when placing it, you don't need to when finding it. Walking away is ok. But I'd really hate the alternate of rubber containers with only plastic items placed only in areas that are flat and soft, and within 5 minutes of the hostpital.

 

We would miss out on too much.

[The Alethiometrists]

If special equipment is required, such as climbing gear, that should be stated clearly. As long as that's done and the risks are made clear, more power to them! Not everyone can or will want to do them, but I'm glad they're available. They certainly make for memorable finds. And I've got some hide ideas in mind that I'd hate to have nixxed by any litigiphobia.

 

Back when my daughter was little, I noticed how most new playgrounds didn't have swingsets, but went for safer equipment. Oy vey! As Shakespeare so memorably suggested: "First, let's kill all the lawyers." (and I've got a brother who chases ambulances for a living...)

[SFABobby03]

I like a little danger in my life so I am looking for these types of caches. I am glad they are allowed!

[+wimseyguy]

That's what the terrain rating is there for.

If you do not feel safe attempting a cache, walk away.

But that doesn't mean that someone else can't try to find it.

[+shawhh]

total agreement with nittany dave and wimseyguy. -harry

[AJK]

I have been in two situations when caching where I got myself into a compromised position, once with a stuck car, once in a bog. Upon reflection, I know what I should not have done, and have learnt from that.

 

Bring on the higher terrain ratings.

[+evergreenhiker!]

Well, I think the cache is perfectably acceptable. Whether I would do it or not is up to question. I'd have to go to the site and determine for myself if I could do that or not. As long as the cache owner warns you of danger, I don't have a problem wih these type of caches. We need some like this...who remembers the drive bys? I don't. It's the physically hard or somewhat dangerous ones that I look back on fondly.

[+horsegeeks]

I certainly agree with everyone that has posted so far. You can usually determine if you want/should do the cache before you even leave the house. When you get to the cache the final determination can be made. If the cache isn't approved it takes away the fun from the people that can do it. So far we have completed all of the tougher caches we have gone to but will be comfortable turning one down if need be. Another idea that some of the purists may not agree with is go with a team. Then everyone can go with their strengths to complete the cache. We did that with Earth, Wind, Fire and Water and all enjoyed the awesome experience. Have fun, be safe, and happy caching

[+Texan78]

Yea i tend to agree with the fact it is up to the finder weather or not they wanna try to get it or not. If its posted of the dangers and the finders is trained in the skills to obtain that certain cache then why not. I also understand they ALL cant be easy, but thier are other ways to make hides harder to find then putting one on the side of a cliff. Even a seasoned rock climber or scuba diver you take risks. I know some people do these things just for the fun of it, but is it worth putting your life in danger over a plastic container of plastic toys should something happen? I know for some it would be nice for you to be able to mix two things you enjoy into one thing. But, even though the person who placed it didnt get hurt from placing it doesnt mean that someone out hunting wont get hurt. I just know i wouldnt want it on my conisence if somebody was to get hurt or die from a cache i placed regardless of the warnings. You just know thier are going to a be some who think they can handle it and cant. It just spells danger. Its a tough call to make, i just dont think i would wanna mix the two as its a conflict of intrest, but i can also see where some would not find a problem in it at all. Its definately a very arguable topic. So in order to not take a hit from bad PR for geocaching that one of these caches might pose. I wouldnt approve it. There is a place for thrill seekers and i dont think this is the place. Thier should be a fine line drawn between the two. Even though you cache at your own risk, you could see a legal mess from it if someone was to get hurt. Not saying someone would have a case if it did happen. But dont tell McDonalds that when it comes to a cup of coffee. They know anything is possible.

[+zygote2k]

live outside the box for a change!

[+Texan78]

Would you care to elaborate on that before i reply to it and take it out of text?

 

If i understand you correctly, you say live outside the box. I say look at the bigger picture here.

[+nittany dave]

I just know i wouldnt want it on my conisence if somebody was to get hurt or die from a cache i placed regardless of the warnings.

I think the same thing can be said about hiding that has already been said about seeking...Placing it is your decision. If you don't feel comfortable about a particular location (not because you can't do it but because you are worried about others) you should not place it.

There's room for lots of variety here.

[+nfa]

Hi,

 

I just wanted to weigh in on this important (I think) issue.

 

The risk involved in attempting to visit geocaches varies...no doubt about it. A geocache with a safe parking area, short and level walk to the cache, and a cache placed on a nicely mown lawn might represent one end of the risk continuum. A cache requiring a 50 mile hike through the gobi dessert, scuba diving to find a clue leading to an ascent of the north face of the Eiger and eventually a 180 foot scuba dive to the underwater cave the cache is hidden in might be pretty far out at the other end of the continuum.

 

If the information presented in both listings is accurate, describes the conditions a cache might expect to find on the trip to the cache, and they meet the guidelines of gc.com, then it should of course be an acceptable cache. Different types and level of challenge make the game more appealing to a wider variety of geocachers, this is a good thing.

 

Do you have to go after a cache that may involve a higher level of risk to your person than you are comfortable with...NO. We can choose which caches we want to go after and which ones we want to ignore. Life is dangerous, fatal even...nobody's survived it yet!

 

I might not be tempted to go after a cache requiring me to put my skin or bones in peril...but I might. I do, however, love the idea that there are really hairy caches out there.

 

Happy New Year!

 

nfa-jamie

[+Texan78]

Like i said in my other post i dont have a problem with making caches for other lifestlyes. Thier should be a fine line drawn between the two though. Now from what this cache listing suggests, "may want to bring first aid kit and cell phone because there is a good chance of falling and injuring yourself". Now caches like that shouldnt be listed. If it doesnt state any kind of special equipment or can even use any and is just down right dangerous. Then why place a cache that is likely to harm someone. I havent actually seen the cache listing so im just going by what is said here. You know their are going to be a few people that will try to push their physical limits and cant do it and get hurt. I've come across a few caches where you could fall off a creek bed down 20-30 feet to your death and nothing is mentioned about it in the listing. Yes i could have choose not to do it and a lot of people will think that way yes. Just keep in mind that their are a lot of people who dont see it what way. Why take a chance on something like that. So unless thier is specific details stating the difficulty of the cache then it shouldnt be placed. If all you can say about it is "may want to bring first aid kit and cell phone because there is a good chance of falling and injuring yourself. Then why take the chance of harming others. Thats why i mean thier needs to be a fine line between to two to protect the less intelligent who try to push their limts beyond their physical limits. If it states you need climbing equip. diving gear, etc and straight up tells you the dangers i dont see any problem with it. Its the borderline ones that i have a problem with. Its sad to say but a fact and this isnt a perffect world and we need to see that everybody that plays this game isnt perfect. So thier might be people out there that wanna try to hurt people. I know thats far fetch, but its the harden truth of our world. Thats why your local approvers should look at these more closely to keep everyone safe. Thats what i mean by a fine line.

[+wimseyguy]

<snip>. If it doesnt state any kind of special equipment or can even use any and is just down right dangerous. Then why place a cache that is likely to harm someone. I havent actually seen the cache listing so im just going by what is said here.<snip> .

If the terrain rating is greater than a 3.5 on this cache it says enough right there for me:

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult. Yes, I have seen and even reported a few caches where the D/T ratings weren't consistant with the local customs. But again , this gets taken care of in the logs.

<snip> You know their are going to be a few people that will try to push their physical limits and cant do it and get hurt. I've come across a few caches where you could fall off a creek bed down 20-30 feet to your death and nothing is mentioned about it in the listing.  Thats why i mean thier needs to be a fine line between to two to protect the less intelligent who try to push their limts beyond their physical limits. <snip>

Since when are the approvers charged with protecting people from themsleves?

Someone who is overweight or has high blood pressure could experience problems on any cache with a two mile hike involved. Should we ban those too if they do not indicate the length on the cache page?

<snip> Its sad to say but a fact and this isnt a perffect world and we need to see that everybody that plays this game isnt perfect. <snip>

Nope not a perfect world, and no perfect people in it either. BTW-you have a few misspellings in your post.

There is nothing sad about making this this statement. Anything else is just pipe dreams and candy canes.

<snip>So thier might be people out there that wanna try to hurt people. I know thats far fetch, but its the harden truth of our world. Thats why your local approvers should look at these more closely to keep everyone safe. Thats what i mean by a fine line<snip>

Maybe there are a few cachers out there whose intent is to cause injury to others (although I really really doubt it). The peer review system of logging finds and DNF's will weed those out quickly. If you want to play it safe, stay away from anything with a rating over 3, and read the logs to be sure no one has typed " you gotta be nuts to try and find this one. I nearly killed myself getting to the cache location.

Bottom line is that this is an outdoor activity, with various degrees of adventure and risk available for those who choose to accept them. Nothing personal, but a quick scan of your profile shows that you really do not have the experience yet to make this a major soapbox issue. I'm not a hardcore, extreme type outdoors person by any means. But I like to opportunity to go for these types of caches on occasion, just like I like to go for the guard rail or parking lot 1/1's.

I can tell you this though;the challanging ones are a lot more memorable.

[+Texan78]

Oh brother, you missed my point entirely.

 

but a quick scan of your profile shows that you really do not have the experience yet to make this a major soapbox issue

 

Since when does a profile have anything to do with my outdoor experiance? Why should that be a reason to dismiss my opionions and views. How do you know i dont have another account? That arguement is irrelevent.

 

" you gotta be nuts to try and find this one. I nearly killed myself getting to the cache location.

 

So why let a cache like that stay available? Does it take someone getting killed over it before its archived? If you knew the porblems were having in Texas you would understand the reason behind it. Since this is a Texas cache.

 

So if i put a cache on a stick thats 20ft out over a cliff that drops 50ft and put the only way to it is to climb out on the limb to get it and you might die from it. That would be ok? Like IVE SAID. i have no problem with difficulty levels and certain caches that need other talents to get to. You have to draw a fine line between the two that are borderline that could pose a extreme danger to those who try it without experiance. I'm talking about the obvious cases, not the everyday hiking or normal diffculty level caches as the diffcutly level has a wide curve.

[+nfa]

give me a link to a cache that you consider to be an obvious case of being on the far side of the line you would draw...and we can talk about that one

 

nfa-jamie

[+sawdust]

Are they worth the risk?  I was in Waco, Texas last week and I found 16 caches while there.  One of the caches stated, may want to bring first aid kit and cell phone because there is a good chance of falling and injuring yourself. 

 

COME ON !!!!  You have got to be kidding me.  When a volunteer of the state approves these caches does he actually read the cache description.  Personally, I wouldn't approve these types of caches. 

 

I visited this cache and it was a joke, I said to myself there is no way I'm going down there.  This cache, which I will protect the identy of needed a harness and a professional rock climber.

 

I WANT YOUR OPINON, GO AHEAD SPEAK FREELY.

I live in the area you are talking about, and I have done each and every cache in this area. I cannot for the life of me figure out which cache you are talking about. There are a few that might appear to be difficult, but a little forward thinking will lead to a safe approach. Please post which cache you are refering to. I know all of the cache placers in the area, and I know for a fact none of them would place a cache in a dangerous manner. Therefore, I do not believe your posting to be factual. If this was a game of poker I would say you are being called! Lay down your cards! If your going to cry foul in my neck of the woods have the courage to show the proof!!! Sawdust92

Edited December 29, 2004 by sawdust92

[+pnew]

Sawdust I'm sure they were talking about your "Your a Poet and don't even know it!" Here's the proof!

 

 

 

 

I was saying the same thing myself (when we went down there to look for a cache that obviously wasn't down there.)

[+TheGeoGoes]

Are they worth the risk? I was in Waco, Texas last week and I found 16 caches while there. One of the caches stated, may want to bring first aid kit and cell phone because there is a good chance of falling and injuring yourself.

 

COME ON !!!! You have got to be kidding me. When a volunteer of the state approves these caches does he actually read the cache description. Personally, I wouldn't approve these types of caches.

 

I visited this cache and it was a joke, I said to myself there is no way I'm going down there. This cache, which I will protect the identy of needed a harness and a professional rock climber.

 

I WANT YOUR OPINON, GO AHEAD SPEAK FREELY.

HI firemaneffs!

 

I noticed your logs from the Waco caches last week. It sounded like you had a lot of fun and we're sure glad that you did!

 

I also noticed this thread you started and have to admit I'm a bit puzzled about which cache you are referring to. I have been trying and trying to think of a cache in Waco , Texas like the one you described but can't come up with one that fits the description of one that would , " need a harness and a professional rock climber. "

 

We have been to every cache in the Waco area; we either placed them or found them all. Not one cache did we require even a rope to tie ourselves off; and certainly have not placed or found any that required a harness or being a professional rock climber. (We aren't professional rock climbers; nor do we own any specialized equipment like that.) I think it would be fine if there were one in the area; but we would probably have to skip that one too.

 

The reason I bring all this up is I am wondering if you might have gotten the location wrong somehow. It just doesn't seem to fit any cache in Waco that I can think of.

 

I too personally know all the cache placers in the area and we are a very tight knit group that meet often and talk via email, our forum, phones, etc all the time. I can tell you for a fact that our cachers are extremely safety conscious and we all take it upon ourselves to help promote safety in this sport/game and we feel it's our responsibility to protect our fellow geocachers (both local and out of towners) from harm. I know that I usually go "above and beyond" on our cache descriptions to make sure that people know exactely what they are getting into before they even decide if they want to make the trip out to a cache of ours that is difficult. (terrain wise) I want them properly warned and then some!

 

If it's a cache a mine that you are referencing...........then go ahead and post it's link , etc. If I've overlooked something ; I sure want to know about it.

 

Also , I wanted to comment that I agree that you did the right thing in leaving the cache in question. If you don't feel safe about a cache for any reason then it's smart to walk away. Not every cache out there is made for every cacher! It's up to us to know our individual limitations and to make our own choices as to what caches are for us.

 

Take care !

Jenny/TheGeoGeos

[+BikerMike]

Like every good cache, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach. The only one in Waco I can think of even remotely sounding like your description of a tough cache is "MCC River View". And if you approach it correctly, you need no special equipment, if you don't, then yeah, you might want some equipment. Personally if I think I need equipment, I look for another route in. In fact, I did it one cold morning holding a cup of coffee.

 

The other is in Whitney called "Tie Me Off". Tricky yes, but Sawdust and I did that one together and took no special equipment.

 

If you'd like, tell us here which cache it is, or send us a private mail. Maybe we can help you out with an explanation if there is a different way to approach the cache.

 

BikerMike

[+Texan78]

give me a link to a cache that you consider to be an obvious case of being on the far side of the line you would draw...and we can talk about that one

 

nfa-jamie

Im speaking in a general sense. I'm also going by the way this cache was described on here. Thier has to be a line drawn to whats safe and whats not to protect those who are not intelligent enough to not do it. Thats all im saying.

 

I'm not against challenging caches, or ones that take gear of some sort to complete and if ti states you need it the rock on go for it. The ones that should be looked at carefully are the ones some one can walk up to and attempt without any gear that poses harm and states it poses harm. Thier are people out there that have no common sense and yes it sucks, We all suffer from thier ignorance, but thats life. We cant help that thier are morons out there. Just like growing up, if you had bothers and sisters and one got in trouble you all got in trouble. Same goes here. Since thier are some that cant say no and walk away, then these caches shouldnt be available. We have already had one caching death in Texas from a fall regardless of the factor, we dont need another.

[+pnew]

I'm pretty sure this is the cache in question:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gch6er

 

and here is a little background of the area and my experience while finding the cache (taken from the txga boards):

 

lol if it is, thats the one, BikerMike beat me too the FTF with a full cup of coffee. Didn't spill a drop (so he says!)

 

Ok and just to fill everyone in. The parking for this one is at a place called "Lover's Leap" overlooking the Brazos as it winds through Cameron Park. 2 people did die due to falls last year at that spot but both were determined to be due to drunkeness while watching the speed boat races on the river or completely out of line and irresponsible behavior on the unsafe, clearly marked, barrier strewn side of the cliff... at night! (BTW Cameron Park is the most frequented city owned/run park in Waco with Mountain Bike trails that were worthy of hosting some rather large recent bike races)

 

The side I went down, as long as I thought about my next step, gave me no trouble what so ever as the same result occured with all other cachers attempting this cache from the same spot. In fact it starts off with a trail so my guess is this cacher either did not notice the trail, or assumed his opinions from his car. I had more trouble in the last 20 ft of the cache due to a pine needle covered ~45 degree angle slope I had a humerous time sliding down than the first .14 miles getting to the cache.

 

The more I look at it I think sig_J is right and that was the cache. The logs prove it was easy to access from every direction, however if you wanted to repel I'm sure you could find a way to do that too.

 

I say we figured it out.

[+TheGeoGoes]

I'm pretty sure this is the cache in question:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gch6er

 

and here is a little background of the area and my experience while finding the cache (taken from the txga boards):

 

lol if it is, thats the one, BikerMike beat me too the FTF with a full cup of coffee. Didn't spill a drop (so he says!)

 

Ok and just to fill everyone in. The parking for this one is at a place called "Lover's Leap" overlooking the Brazos as it winds through Cameron Park. 2 people did die due to falls last year at that spot but both were determined to be due to drunkeness while watching the speed boat races on the river or completely out of line and irresponsible behavior on the unsafe, clearly marked, barrier strewn side of the cliff... at night! (BTW Cameron Park is the most frequented city owned/run park in Waco with Mountain Bike trails that were worthy of hosting some rather large recent bike races)

 

The side I went down, as long as I thought about my next step, gave me no trouble what so ever as the same result occured with all other cachers attempting this cache from the same spot. In fact it starts off with a trail so my guess is this cacher either did not notice the trail, or assumed his opinions from his car. I had more trouble in the last 20 ft of the cache due to a pine needle covered ~45 degree angle slope I had a humerous time sliding down than the first .14 miles getting to the cache.

 

The more I look at it I think sig_J is right and that was the cache. The logs prove it was easy to access from every direction, however if you wanted to repel I'm sure you could find a way to do that too.

 

I say we figured it out.

We approached this one a lot differentely. We parked at the M.C.C. (McLennan Community College) Marina. (After all the cache name is "M.C.C. Riverview") If you wanted more of a challenge you could definitely take Pnew's route.........but I don't think that was the cache placer's intention.

 

So, if you take the route from the M.C.C. Marina there is no reason to enter Cameron Park or deal with any cliffs, etc. The route we took was very easy terrain wise. It was mostly a nice walk on a dedicated hike and bike trail and far from any perils. The last 100 feet we did have to walk up a fairly steep dirt embankment............but there was a fence line you could follow and hold onto or you could trod right up the hill like I did with no problems. I guess on the way down if you weren't careful you could end up doing a butt slide or maybe twist an ankle but that's really about it. There were no cliffs or anything else dangerous on our route.

 

If this is the cache "in question" then I would guess that unfortunately the cacher was more than a bit off in his approach. And, that could certainly happen to anybody.....especially if you weren't from the area and/or weren't familiar with the area the cache was named for and placed in.

 

Jenny/TheGeoGoes

[+Spencersb]

that could certainly happen to anybody.....especially if you weren't from the area and/or weren't familiar with the area the cache was named for and placed in.

 

Jenny/TheGeoGoes

That's a good point, I know more than once I have made a rough approach to a cache only to find a well worn trail 30 feet from it coming from the opposite direction!

[+wimseyguy]

Oh brother, you missed my point entirely.

OK then please elaborate. You seem to want the gc.com volunteer approvers to draw this "fine line" as you put it somewhere in the sand for all of us. The problem with that is that each of us needs that line to be somewhere else, and the only one what can make that determination for you, is you.

 

Since when does a profile have anything to do with my outdoor experiance? Why should that be a reason to dismiss my opionions and views. How do you know i dont have another account? That arguement is irrelevent

.

All of my comments were made within the context of geocaching, using the info contained in the profile you are posting from and my personal experiences over the past 2+ years. I did not dismiss your opinions, but suggested that you are making this a personal soapbox without much visable support. If you have other background info or experiences that make you feel so strongly about this issue, please share them with us.

" you gotta be nuts to try and find this one. I nearly killed myself getting to the cache location.

So why let a cache like that stay available? Does it take someone getting killed over it before its archived?

I do not wish to see anyone injured or killed while geocaching or enjoying any other outdoor recreational activity. I also do not wish to see gc.com become a site with only green dot caches, and no blue or black challanges.

 

If you knew the porblems were having in Texas you would understand the reason behind it. Since this is a Texas cache.

I thought you were speaking in general terms? If this is a singular TX cache why not share to one you have concerns with. I am also aware from my regular forum activity that there are some issues in TX regarding approvers and The Selector. Most of the cache related posts I have seen were complaining that caches were not being approved.

The OP posted a question about dangerous caches, and asked for opinions. I gave mine.

 

So if i put a cache on a stick thats 20ft out over a cliff that drops 50ft and put the only way to it is to climb out on the limb to get it and you might die from it. That would be ok?

If the cache page described this I probably wouldn't drive out there. If it didn't specify the particular challange involved, and I drove and hiked out there, I probably would post a DNF. But that's my choice, and I appreciate being given the opportunity to make it. I have hunted and found several caches that put me at risk of injury. I have yet to take what I considered an unecessary risk for myself.

What about a cache that's only on a 5 ft. branch, with a ten ft. drop? Would you want that hide approved or denied? See the problem with asking for a "fine line"?

 

Again nothing personal here, so don't take it that way, please. I just think we have enough rules and guideline in place already, and you are asking for something that is, in the long run, not beneficial to the growth and wellbeing of this activity, and pretty much unenforcable as well.

Edited December 29, 2004 by wimseyguy

[+horsegeeks]

Well said Wimseyguy

[+nfa]

I'm pretty sure this is the cache in question:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gch6er

 

Hi,

 

If this is the cache that the op was talking about, I honestly don't see the problem with listing it...if there really is one with a 20 foot pole leaning out over a 50 foot cliff, post the link...

 

nfa-jamie

[+Texan78]

Since you seem to like to nit pick my posts and ignore the points i try to make every time. Then nit pick this apart and look at reality for a minute. Yes you and me and others are smart enought to know are limits. BUT sadly enough their are people out thier that are not. IM AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS CACHE. I'm talking about dangerous caches in general. Where do you draw the line? When someone dies?

 

What about a cache that's only on a 5 ft. branch, with a ten ft. drop? Would you want that hide approved or denied? See the problem with asking for a "fine line"?

 

Is that what you consider a "Fine Line"?

 

This should be a game to play for all levels and challenges, but within boundarys. If i was to make a listing that stated becareful, you could die while attempting this cache, it would be alright and should be apporved? Granted the smart ones will turn back, but once again thier are some that arent. Isnt that against this "Code" that is being forced on us to follow? Once agian im NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS CACHE. I'm talking about ones that are just too dangerous to attempt for ANYONE. So your telling me that i can get anything approved as long as its not within 500ft of another cache. Which in Texas that doesnt get followed ether and its apporved. So what exactly are the guidelines we are suppose to follow are where do you draw the line. You might not care about the saftey of fellow cachers but for me, i am. All m asking is where do you draw the line? So dont nit pick my posts and try to demean me? Just answer than simple question.

[+nfa]

Hi,

 

Why should I draw a line if cannot show me an example of a cache you think is over "your line"?

 

How about we let people make their own decisions about which caches they want to hunt for, and which ones they would prefer to leave alone.

 

If a cache meets the guidelines established by gc.com, then it should be ok, and then people should be allowed to figure out for themselves whether or not they want to go out and find it.

 

Smoking, driving a car, drinking alcohol, scuba-diving, juggling chainsaws, eating bacon, river rafting...all of these things are deadly and kill lots of people every year, but I don't feel it's anyone's business to tell me I can't do them if I want to...

 

clear warnings and good information about the risks involved - YES

 

forbidding these activities (as well as possibly hazardous geocaches) - NO

 

just my $0.02

 

nfa-jamie

Edited December 30, 2004 by NFA

[+wimseyguy]

All m asking is where do you draw the line? So don't nit pick my posts and try to demean me? Just answer than simple question.

 

Again, sorry if you think my style of replying to each point seperatly instead of in a long rant is nit-picking. I am not demeaning you, your opinions and experiences, or any of the issues in the great state of TX. I have several good friends there, and have made several more on these boards. I spent my first anniversary there as well. I look forward to roadtripping there soon to hunt some of your fine caches.

 

(BTW if you feel I have been unfair or unreasonable, and have violated he guidelines of this forum, we can discuss this in PM's or you can use the report button that is at the upper right corner of each and every post in the forums. TPTB will be happy to review our discussion.)

 

The point that I and others are making in this thread, is that the line should be drawn by each individual participating in this activity. Plain and simple.

 

You seem to be the one looking for the lines and boundries, yet you have yet to offer your definition, or any examples of caches you feel have crossed over it. This is what the forums are for. Please share.

[+TeamTeeGee]

Hi,

 

Why should I draw a line if cannot show me an example of a cache you think is over "your line"?

 

How about we let people make their own decisions about which caches they want to hunt for, and which ones they would prefer to leave alone.

 

If a cache meets the guidelines established by gc.com, then it should be ok, and then people should be allowed to figure out for themselves whether or not they want to go out and find it.

 

Smoking, driving a car, drinking alcohol, scuba-diving, juggling chainsaws, eating bacon, river rafting...all of these things are deadly and kill lots of people every year, but I don't feel it's anyone's business to tell me I can't do them if I want to...

 

clear warnings and good information about the risks involved - YES

 

forbidding these activities (as well as possibly hazardous geocaches) - NO

 

just my $0.02

 

nfa-jamie

Word.

 

And for the record, if I should happen to take myself out of the gene pool by being an idiot, overextending my abilities, or failing to read any pertinent warnings about a cache I promise not to hold it against the cache owner in the afterlife.

[+Texan78]

Why should I draw a line if cannot show me an example of a cache you think is over "your line"?

 

Im speaking about caches in general, where do you draw the line to keep this game somewhat safe? Have you not read anything i have posted?

 

How about we let people make their own decisions about which caches they want to hunt for, and which ones they would prefer to leave alone.

 

So you dont care if caches are placed that someone who is not smart enough to leave alone could die from?

 

If a cache meets the guidelines established by gc.com,

 

What are those guidelines? Does anyone know. Thats what i've been trying to ask. Instead everyone whats to demean my comments.

 

Smoking, driving a car, drinking alcohol, scuba-diving, juggling chainsaws, eating bacon, river rafting...all of these things are deadly and kill lots of people every year, but I don't feel it's anyone's business to tell me I can't do them if I want to...

 

Some of those have regulations or regulated bodys. No one is telling you what to do and what not to do. It's a issue of safety. Do you not beleive in metal detectors or secruity checks at airports? Some would say thats against admendments righs and thier civil libertys. BUT GUESS WHAT. It's there for peoples safety?

 

 

You seem to be the one looking for the lines and boundries, yet you have yet to offer your definition, or any examples of caches you feel have crossed over it.

 

Still you have failed to answer one simple quetion i have asked. I have given an example, but it was made a mockery of. So thier should be no guidelines set for what is to dagerous, is that what your saying?

 

Some of you might forget, thier are people of ALL ages that play this game. Some teenagers dont know thier limits as well as some adults. We cant keep an eye on our kids 24-7 but yet you want them to be safe. Would you want them or a loved one doing something that good kill them when you have a chance to put a regulation on what is safe and whats not. If you wanna smoke, drink, eat bacon, so be it. But when you have a chance to put a regulation on something and draw a line to keep the game safe and fun for everyone then why not.

 

So once again im going to ask this. What is the line for something you cosider to be unsafe. What are the bounarys, where do you draw the line to help keep people safe? How hard is that to answer. Why do you need an example, do you not have a opinion of your own? You sure seem to use it to mockery of my posts?

[+ArmandoM]

Interesting Topic, I think I see your point Texan78

Let me see, we shouldn’t place caches that are too dangerous for some kind of people (the not so smart kind). Ok I can handle that but, how do we measure that?

Let me give an example of a “dangerous cache” if, you were an approver would you approved this cache? This cache is not in Texas but I thing still works for this topic. Is this to risky?

[+TeamTeeGee]

I'm not trying to mock or demean you by saying this, but it seems to me that you are advocating the "legislation" of common sense and you're simply getting put out that no one else is jumping on your bandwagon. I believe the reason for that should be fairly clear. Most adults (at least the ones I know and associate with) take a very dim view of anyone attempting to tell them what they can and cannot do (within the bounds of the law, of course).

 

In reading this thread it seems that most of the responders to your question have all given the same answer, in essence. That being, it is up to the individual to determine whether or not a cache is too difficult or dangerous for them to attempt to find it. There is no convenient place to draw that figurative line because it will fall out differently for each and every individual.

 

As for the argument that "kids" might not know their limits, I think that is somewhat of a straw man. Many adults don't know their limits either. Let's say for example that I were to place a cache 200' up a cliff. Now, on the cache page I make it abundantly clear that this is a very difficult cache and that the use of climbing gear is a complete necessity. Next, let's say that Joe Teenager decides he doesn't need any stinkin' climbin' gear and that he can get that cache with no problems. Then the next thing I hear is that Joe Teenager broke his neck trying to get to the cache. Would I feel bad for Joe Teenager? Sure, I consider myself to be a fairly compassionate individual. Would I lose a minute of sleep over Joe Teenager's decision? Not at all. I made it clear what the risks were and it's not my fault if Joe Teenager (or Joe Adult for that matter) didn't exercise some common sense.

 

So, I guess my short answer to you as to where to draw the line would be where ever common sense dictates. It's just that I will steadfastly refuse to have anyone else in the world dictate to me just where that line is.

Edited December 30, 2004 by TeamTeeGee

[+Texan78]

Let me see, we shouldn’t place caches that are too dangerous for some kind of people (the not so smart kind). Ok I can handle that but, how do we measure that?

 

finnally someone what ACTUALLY seeing what im trying to say.

 

Let me give an example of a “dangerous cache” if, you were an approver would you approved this cache? This cache is not in Texas but I thing still works for this topic. Is this to risky?

 

Thats a perfect example. I mean come on know people. You have to be indiana jones to do this cache. I wouldnt want my kid or loved one to try this. If he was to get killed from a cache "THIS SITE" approved i would have a lawsuit all over this site. After talking to other legal counsel that are lawyers on our Texas site about this exact topic. You would have a very vaild case. That leads to Bad PR and possible the end of this site and the possiblty of government stepping in to regulate it. So why wait till that happens.

 

 

In reading this thread it seems that most of the responders to your question have all given the same answer, in essence. That being, it is up to the individual to determine whether or not a cache is too difficult or dangerous for them to attempt to find it.

 

Once again your missing the point. I UNDERSTAND IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO KNOW HIS OWN LIMTS. No one is telling anyone what to do and not do. WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE TO SAY A CACHE IS TO DANGEROUS. My god people how hard is that to answer. It's one simple question, or does know one think thier should be some saftery factory established here. So it would be ok for me to place a cache to a pin of a gernade and post becareful you dont pull the pin you might blow yourself up, thats ok? Dont give me this BS well show me a cache like that. Thats not what im asking you want an example there you go. Would a cache like that be to dangerous or would it be ok?

 

As far as Joe teenager is concerned, you stated he needed climbing gear to do this. If he chose not to thats his fault. There are alot of rock climbers that could do it with no problem and im all for those. But when you have to be Indian Jones to do a cache where you can use no equip or the possiblitys of dying is high. The why post a cache like that and approving it.

 

Would you want your kid or loved one to go out and attempt the cache listed above? Be kinda hard to explain to you kids if you had any that daddy was too stuipd to know his limits and was killed trying to find a box with little plastic toys. I know some people know their limits but some dont.

[+TeamTeeGee]

Once again your missing the point. I UNDERSTAND IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO KNOW HIS OWN LIMTS. No one is telling anyone what to do and not do. WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE TO SAY A CACHE IS TO DANGEROUS. My god people how hard is that to answer. It's one simple question, or does know one think thier should be some saftery factory established here.

Okay. Fair enough. Here's my answer to your question that I've quoted in bold above.

 

I draw the line and say a cache is too dangerous when I know it is beyond my physical ability to attempt to find it.

 

I wouldn't even consider trying to find the cache that Armando & Co. linked to, but that is my personal decision. I'm not a rock climber. Nor would I attempt to find a cache that was located 100' under water since I'm not a diver either.

 

However, would it be fair to not list a cache that was up a cliff or below the water simply because the majority of cachers aren't climbers or divers? I don't think so. Sure, I might be a little put out because I'm not up to being able to log that cache as a find, but such is life.

 

As for a lawsuit being filed against this site for someone's short-sightedness, stupidity, carelessness, or any other appropriate adjective, I can only say that I'm not aware of any Darwin Award recipients who's family members have successfully litigated a wrongful death suit on their behalf. Could that happen? Sure, especially in America. But I really don't think it would be too likely. Of course, that's just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

[+ArmandoM]

Ok good, so you saw that there were plenty of warnings telling you what to do and what not to do.

So let’s say that despite all the warnings someone goes there alone and without telling anyone else where they were going and not prepare at all for this cache and he ends up getting hurt. Who’s the one to blame the owner of the cache, or the cacher? and why?

[+wimseyguy]

This will be my final post to this thread. You have asked reasonable questions, been given reasonable answers, yet you still do not want to see the point that almost everyone else who has participated in this discussion agrees upon. I (and I think the others) have read everything you have posted.

What are those guidelines? Does anyone know?

Let's start with this one. They are easy to find. Go the the gc.com home page, click on "hide and seek a cache", the link to them can be easily found in the upper right corner of that page.

Im speaking about caches in general, where do you draw the line to keep this game somewhat safe?

You have now been told in several different posts that we prefer to draw our own lines with regards to personal safety. Why should it be different for geocaching than hiking, biking, skiing etc. ? Each of these other outdoor recreational activities can be played at a variety of levels. There is no governing board to tell me I cannot attempt to ski a particular slope, or bike/hike a certain trail. Why are you so insistant that this activity be different? Over the past 2.5 years I and my geopals have done some things to find a cache that involved risk. Those experiences are some of my most cherished.

Guess what, some of those caches involved "Indiana Jones" type activities. We came prepared, we assesed the challange, and we safely found the cache. We drew our own lines and would like to continue to do so. We also had to learn to read Klingon for one cache. I don't think Indy ever had to do that.

How does one know what one's limits are withour reaching out and beyond sometimes?

 

You proposed a line be drawn with your hypothetical cache on a pole on a cliff face? I didn't mock you; I merely asked, if your distances were over the line you want to see, what distances would you consider to be safe? Or should no caches ever be placed on a cliff or any overhang? I think you would get a pretty large argument from most of the cachers in the west where these terrain characteristics are common.

So you dont care if caches are placed that someone who is not smart enough to leave alone could die from?

I think by making this an intellegence test you are the one who might be mocking or demeaning others. I can think of two examples. 1. The 20 year old son of one of my caching pals has what might be labeled a learning disability. He probably did not do well in school, currently lives in a group home, and works at a county run program for individuals like him. If you were to meet him at an event you might not think he is smart enough to do a difficult cache, or be out on the trail alone. That would be a wrong decision. I have been on the trails with him many times. He is an outstanding cacher, and someone I am proud to call a friend. 2. The oldest daughter of another good friend has been labeled as 'learning disabled'. She has difficulty reading and remembering because her brain processes information differently. However, give this child a puzzle and stand back. Or have a conversation with her, and you think you are talking to an 18 year old, not a 12 year old. She possess an unusual common sense maturity, bot not book smarts. Would you decide she is too stupid to decide whether or not to attempt to do something with regard to her own safety? Of course not; you do not know these two individuals, so why are you asking gc.com to decide what they are capable of doing?

Still you have failed to answer one simple quetion i have asked. I have given an example, but it was made a mockery of. So thier should be no guidelines set for what is to dagerous, is that what your saying?

Finally with regard to this issue, your question has been answered by me and others. The boundry line for danger must be determined by each person for themselves. You shouldn't and can't tell me what slope is too steep, hill too high, or water too deep/rough for me to attempt to safely navigate for geocaching, or any other activity I choose to participate in. I repsect your ability to do the same for you.

 

Also your airline analogy is greatly flawed. By purchasing a ticket to fly on a plane, you are giving the airline the responsibilty to get you there safely. By printing out a page from the gc.com website, you are not expecting them to get you there safely. You must do so yourlself.

Unfortunalty history has shown that a very small minority of fanatics have decided that an airplane and its passengers can be used to further their cause. That is why the security exists at airports.

One final thought after reading some posts that were made as I was crafting this reply: gc.com is not geocaching. There are other listing services. I prefer to use this one; it seems so do may other geocachers. Second, there is a very well written disclaimer on each and every listed geocache. I have full confidence in the business owners of this site that their legal counsel has advised them to place this there, and probably assisted in the actual wording of it. I'm sure the TX based lawyers you are discussing this issue with are also very capable. If they are so concerned that high risk caches will be the demise of gc.com, I suggest that they start a private discussion on the issue.

[+Texan78]

Once again you nit picked my post and failed to answer a the question.

 

2 examples of someone with learning disablity doesnt count for the millions of people in this world.

 

So would you be ok for your 12 yr old son to do a cache that has no business being listing when it states you have a chance from being killed? All for what? That listing is ok with you? Everything has limits and boundarys. This site is also held accountable for what is listed and what is not. So the safety of its memebers should be taken in account.

 

Still for the last time since you dont seem to understand. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO OR NOT TO DO. This site doesnt tell you what the limits are when placing a cache. Their are guidelines that the aprrovers follow for that. Not no where listed is the conidtions for which one will be discarded for safety. So for the last time, not everyone here are adults and not everyone here has the capiblity to make there own decisions when it comes to thier limts. How and where do you draw a line to keep these people and all safe.

 

The arilines dont regulate the security of airports. the Governments does which they pay for through taxes that YOU provide. Do you pay taxes? So that means you provide the money to pay for Cops, Army, Airport Secuirty, etc. Against your will. I dont have a choice to not pay taxes without imprisonment. Shouldnt it be my choice for weather i want to pay taxes from my hard earned money for safety. Your getting forced by the government to pay for safety. Since you dont really care about the safety or you and others then why do you pay taxes? Oh what, because you have to, against the will of a goverment body. This is a governed and regualted web site, why should it be any different. If you feel this guidelines are to strict for your likings then like you said thier are other listing sites. Thier are places for thrill seekers and this place isnt one of them as thier are all ages of people who cache. So for those people thie need to be caches that should not be allowed.

 

So your telling me that ALL CACHES should be approved regardless of the danger factor?

[+zygote2k]

maybe you should just sit home in your jammies.

[+Texan78]

maybe you should just sit home in your jammies.

 

That was the mature way to reply and the smartass remark i expected from somone with little morals

 

So your telling me that ALL CACHES should be approved regardless of the danger factor regardless if its beyond the limits of someone who doesnt know thier limts?

[+zygote2k]

Go beyond your "limits". try something different for a change. live outside the box. just do it. that is how we grow as humans. you only live once. do I need to say more? Maybe you should just stay home in your jammies.