A Touchy Subject!--dangerous Cache Areas.

[+Jerseytrex]

I knew this would be a touchy subject with some cachers but I want to here everyones opinion on this matter. I do not mean to offend any cachers whatsoever To Each His Own. I know as cachers we enjoy bringing people to unique areas they may find interesting but I also believe we have a responsibility to keep eachother safe. A part of me thinks, So what if a park is historic if there are bums living near my proposed cache site I just won't risk putting my fellow cachers in danger. There are a few NYC caches that are on my 10 mile list where the areas are just a bit shady. I mean how much fun can it be to think well how can I avoid getting mugged here? So where do we draw the line?

Edited May 19, 2005 by Jerseytrex

[+Frodo_Underhill]

If you have a cache in a risky area, you should spell out clearly in the cache listing what the risk is. Then it would be up to the individual cachers if they want to take the risk or not. At least they will be able to make an educated decision.

 

Down this way (SNJ) there have been a few interesting urban park and high way rest stop caches but unfortunately these places also appear to be pick up spots for casual sex between consenting adults. I wish that information was somehow communicated so you don't bring the kids along on those kinds of caches.

 

Oh well - I guess its cacher beware on all of these.

[+Team J&J]

Don't think you have to do every single cache within your range. Put it on your ignore list and forget about it. Also, leave a note or email the cache owner so they understand the concern. A responsible owner will archive or move the cache if enough people feel the same way.

 

But, then, you can't count on everyone being a responsible owner. All you can do is erase it from memory and move on.

[+nikcap]

Use the ignore list feature. Some caches just aren't worth it.

 

To elaborate on a subject that kind of bugs me; be it responsibility or just plan courteousness, cache owners should indicate possible dangers. When placing caches, owners should be aware that seekers will have their eyes on the GPS screen, and not looking out for muggers, vagabonds and fugitives.

 

This leads to the question: how much responsibility do the cache reviewers and GC.com take on? Aren't reviewers trained to keep us away from RR tracks, bridges, private property and other no-no's that may cause a black eye for Geocaching, but are they obligated to make sure we are safe? Is it GC.com responsibility to keep us clear of meth labs, hobo camps and unsavory rendezvous points?

(all of which are arguably MORE dangerous then other banned locations)

Yeah, there's a Geocaching Disclaimer, but the fact that there are "guidelines" pretty much blows that out of the water, any lawyer two weeks past the bar exam could probably build a case.

 

Before you flame me, PM me or pop a gasket, this is not an attack or criticism on anyone: cachers, cache placers, reviewers, approvers, GC.com, unsavory characters, or lawyers.

It's simply food for thought.

[mortonfox]

You don't have to clear out a radius. I never understood why people insist on doing that. I usually just head out to wherever the caching's good, regardless of distance from home.

[avroair]

You don't have to clear out a radius. I never understood why people insist on doing that. I usually just head out to wherever the caching's good, regardless of distance from home.

I never understood how someone can reach 3000 caches in this area... Or have been to LI more than 5 times! To each their own, geocaching is goal-oriented, each goal is different.

 

Back to the topic.

I have placed a couple of caches in really cool spots and then gone back and retrieved them before they were listed because I could see the potential of someone either getting hurt or breaking the law, (despite having safe and legal ways of getting to and finding the cache), so I work within my own comfort level. I try to list as many of the pitfalls as possible to avoid such situations.

 

No one is forcing a cacher to go after a cache. It is a choice. Usually i wait for a group or a buddy to go and pick up caches that require a challenge.

[+briansnat]

What constitutes a danger? Someone may feel a cache in a high crime, urban area is dangerous, while another person who grew up in such an area will have no problem with it. Others might think that a cache on a rattlesnake infested mountain is dangerous, while others think its fine. There is one central Jersey cache that terrified me, but others found it without blinking an eye. Caches that involve rock climbing are dangerous for the inexperienced, but veteran climbers find them a piece of cake.

 

I think as long as the cache is rated properly for terrain and/or there is a warning about the specific dangers on the page that's enough. Its then up to the hunters to decide whether or not it something they will attempt. The important thing is for the geocacher to know his or her limits.

[+splicingdan]

A cache owner has absolutely no responsibility to supply information regarding the crime stats of the area. What do some people want?....An attribute for "ghetto" or "homeless"?

 

If you're an adult, then you can make responsible adult decisions. If you don't feel comfortable in a certain area then avoid the cache - plain and simple.

 

Hey Jerseytrex, do you realize that you're more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Paterson, Newark, Jersey City, Orange, or East Orange than you are in NYC?

 

Violent Crime Events per 100,000 people for 2003:

 

NYC = 734

Paterson = 819

Newark = 980

Jersey City = 1212

Orange = 1229

East Orange = 1987

 

Even sacred Hoboken has more property crimes per 100K (3758) than NYC (2183).

 

I just won't risk putting my fellow cachers in danger.

 

That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Edited May 19, 2005 by splicingdan

[Keystone]

Use the ignore list feature. Some caches just aren't worth it.

 

To elaborate on a subject that kind of bugs me; be it responsibility or just plan courteousness, cache owners should indicate possible dangers. When placing caches, owners should be aware that seekers will have their eyes on the GPS screen, and not looking out for muggers, vagabonds and fugitives.

 

This leads to the question: how much responsibility do the cache reviewers and GC.com take on? Aren't reviewers trained to keep us away from RR tracks, bridges, private property and other no-no's that may cause a black eye for Geocaching, but are they obligated to make sure we are safe? Is it GC.com responsibility to keep us clear of meth labs, hobo camps and unsavory rendezvous points?

(all of which are arguably MORE dangerous then other banned locations)

Yeah, there's a Geocaching Disclaimer, but the fact that there are "guidelines" pretty much blows that out of the water, any lawyer two weeks past the bar exam could probably build a case.

 

Before you flame me, PM me or pop a gasket, this is not an attack or criticism on anyone: cachers, cache placers, reviewers, approvers, GC.com, unsavory characters, or lawyers.

It's simply food for thought.

When I review a cache, the information available to me is limited to the online maps, aerial photos, the power of Google, and any personal knowledge that I might have regarding the area where the cache is hidden. There are parks within 10 miles of my house that I never knew about until someone hid a cache there, so being 100 miles away from the cache I'm reviewing is not usually a factor.

 

I can verify a cache's proximity to a dam, a railroad bridge, a school, etc., because these things are featured on maps and photographs. The reviewers generally do a good job of catching these, but we are not perfect. If the cache does not mention anything about the cache being in a school playground, and I only check MapQuest, or if the school is brand new, it may slip past me.

 

Given the challenges of veryifying guideline compliance from a distance, how exactly would a reviewer go about enforcing a "safety" guideline based upon the possible presence of crime, meth labs, dumps full of broken glass, homeless camps, etc.? I've never seen an X on a map for a homeless camp. For these issues we must rely upon the cache description. Often, the cache description fails to mention that the film canister is hidden under a mound of garbage, and that's precisely why many finders are disappointed by such caches. If the issue isn't flagged for me, it's hard to get out my crystal ball and counsel the cache hider on the wisdom of their placement.

 

Volunteer cache reviewers *review" caches for compliance with the site's listing guidelines. By publishing a cache, Geocaching.com and its volunteers are not saying that a cache is safe, appropriate, fun, legal, etc. We're just saying that it meets the listing guidelines insofar as these could be verified during the review process.

 

I agree with you that hiders should disclose known risks on their cache pages.

[+BMSquared]

What constitutes a danger?  Someone may feel a cache in a high crime, urban area is dangerous, while another person who grew up in such an area will have no problem with it.  Others might think that a cache on a rattlesnake infested mountain is dangerous, while others think its fine.

That is not such a big issue if you have the right equipment. I am thinking about getting these because of some local caches... They are "Guaranteed against all North American poisonous snakes."

 

Here is a photo

 

Edited May 19, 2005 by BMSquared

[Keystone]

Omigosh, you're supposed to wear pants underneath those?

 

No wonder that nobody invites me to go geocaching with them.

[+Tiffany's Slaves]

Since requiring "Special Equipment" is supposed to merit a "5" for Terrain, if a cache area is SO crime infested that you need to carry a weapon, should that merit a "5" for terrain?

[+nfa]

I've seen the dangerous cache discussion raised numerous times, here and on other forums. I think the answer for me is that as long as the listing contains complete and accurate information about the cache and any challenges seekers will face hunting for the cache, the cache lister has done their job.

 

nfa-jamie

[+nikcap]

Hey Jerseytrex, do you realize that you're more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Paterson, Newark, Jersey City, Orange, or East Orange than you are in NYC?

Don't cha just love stastics?

 

We may or may not be responsible adults that need little icons to denote hobo camps and meth labs. But, since were all geocachers, numbers are what matter.

 

For the fine crop of cities the Splicingdan picked for us to sample;

The total number of violent crimes is 8699.

With a combined land area 53.2 Sq. Mi.

That's 163.5 Violent Crimes per Sq. Mi.

 

The NYC area had a total of 59447 violent crimes.

With a land area of 308.9 Sq. Mi.

That's 192.4/Sq. Mi.

[+Packanack]

Omigosh, you're supposed to wear pants underneath those? 

 

Two things, struck me today. Keystone approver evidenced a heretofore invisible sense of humor (always so matter of fact businesslike) and have we collectively lost the ability to watch out for ourselves. What possible reason can you give that would justify your going into an area where you run the risk of becoming a crime victim. It sure isn't a number bagged for a website listing. If it is, then time to reevaluate.

[+nikcap]

Given the challenges of veryifying guideline compliance from a distance, how exactly would a reviewer go about enforcing a "safety" guideline based upon the possible presence of crime, meth labs, dumps full of broken glass, homeless camps, etc.?  I've never seen an X on a map for a homeless camp.  For these issues we must rely upon the cache description.

Ah-ha, so your saying it is the cache placers responsibility to identify the possible dangers of a cache location!

 

it's hard to get out my crystal ball and counsel the cache hider on the wisdom of their placement.

 

Wait, doesn't Geocaching.com own all of the satellites? Can't you just zoom down on a cache location and inspect it with your 1 meter resolution infrared cameras?

 

I think most people view Geocaching as a big boys game. But the truth is that GC.com is a family oriented website and Geocaching has been positioned as family activity.

Yes, there is something for everyone here, if you want to do a scuba cache you can find one, if you want to do a cipher cacher those are here too, long hikes and 4+ stage multies, we've got'em. Interestingly enough, a cache of these types or styles would not be placed and posted without it be clearly written out in the cache description. Thus, it's simply polite to post possible dangers near a cache site.

I rather cachers not seek my cache and be happy with their other hunts, then to seek my caches and have it be the downer of the whole day.

Edited May 19, 2005 by ekitt10

[avroair]

What possible reason can you give that would justify your going into an area where you run the risk of becoming a crime victim.

You mean like going over to Long Island for the NJ flag?!?

 

 

If there is something I feel is a potential danger I let people know in the cache description.

[dboggny]

"There are a few NYC caches that are on my 10 mile list where the areas are just a bit shady. I mean how much fun can it be to think well how can I avoid getting mugged here? So where do we draw the line?"

 

The term 'shady' that you use is not only broad, but also relative. First of all. Welcome to NYC, the safest large city in America today. I have lived here for 10 years and i work in all of NYC's neighborhoods; I have, in the past, worked in some of NYC's worst neighborhoods. I have seen just about all there is to see and can honestly say nothing suprises me. You are right to be concerned about safety in NYC; however, you should be just as concerned about caching in many other areas. There is danger wherever you go. In NYC we have more then our fair share of 2 legged predatory animals. Be aware when you visit the city, be aware of your surroundings, be aware of the time, be aware of the area. When you go hiking in Harriman (Bear Mtn) you should be equally as aware. There are dangers involved in hiking in the woods from 4 legged animals to overestimating your own level of ability. Should we ban caches in areas that only I do not feel comfortable in? I don't think so. If i feel a cache is over my level of ability I just don't do it. Believe me, there are a lot of caches above my level of ability.

 

Be aware, i was born in Jersey and lived in Bergen County for over 25 yrs. I hate to break the news to you, there are caches in parks in Bergen County that i consider 'shady'. Be that as it may, it is YOUR responsiblity, and YOUR resonsibility alone to know where you are going and to make a concious decision to go there. If i place a cache near some 'bums' and you don't like the location, don't go. There are a ton of caches within the NYC limits. Some are in 'iffy' places. No one makes me go, no one makes alan2 go or any of the other cachers living in the city.

 

Although I am not a reviewer, I sorta look at new caches that pop up in the city. i have a pretty good handle on the neigborhoods. I also utilize several web resources that i discovered through work that are avaible and that are unique to NYC that show land useage, building information and stuff. For example, i was prepared to place a cache in what i thought was a city park. after checking some of these resources, i learned that the land was owned by the VFW and was maintained by the NYC Dept. of Parks. I knew where to look.

 

If i look at a NYC cache and have any question in my mind about its location, be it because of its proximity to a sensative location, a question about land usage or ownership or the locations danger, i would (and have in the past) spoke up to a reviewer. The issue was resolved. IF I THOUGHT THE PROBLEM WAS NOT RESOLVED I WOULD TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF NECCESARY. I have also been, in the past contacted by reviewers to offer an opinion about locations. They took my opinion under advisement and proceeded as they felt fit to. I do not think there is a cache in NYC that is in or near a neighborhood that is any more dangerous then any other location in NYC. In other words, i do not feel that your chances of becoming a victim at one of the NYC cache locations is any higher then any, random location within NYC or some of the 'shady' parks i have visited in Bergen County.

 

"Don't cha just love stastics?"

 

In regards to this, take notice that 93.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot. In reality, what SplicingDan is posting is in fact true. you have a higher probablity of falling victim to a crime in one of the cities other then NYC.

 

"Thus, it's simply polite to post possible dangers near a cache site."

 

Next time i twist my ankle near a cache because there is a little debression in the earth there, should i come here to complain that the dangers were not listed?

 

"What possible reason can you give that would justify your going into an area where you run the risk of becoming a crime victim."

 

Good news and bad news. The good news is that you MOST likely wont be a crime victim. BAd news is that it could and does happen anywhere. But, you are all smart people and understand this.

 

Just to make a little comment here, if this really was such a big issue, why are we more concerned with parking coordianates then warnings about how dangerous the big city is?

 

the bottom line; there is risk when you go to a big city, i cannot warn you of that risk becuase i cannot predict in concrete terms, your probability of becoming a crime victim. I can warn you (as i do on my cache in NYC in the Bronx) that "this is NYC and you should be aware of that." But if i have to tell you that you are in NYC and you should take care, perhaps you should avoid the area altogether.

 

I offer to anyone who feels they need it, a frank assesment of the locations of any cache in NYC based upon neighborhood. In other words, if you want to know what you "COULD" be getting into, drop me a line and i will give you some idea about what you "COULD" be heading into.

Edited May 19, 2005 by dboggny

[+Jerseytrex]

A cache owner has absolutely no responsibility to supply information regarding the crime stats of the area. What do some people want?....An attribute for "ghetto" or "homeless"?

 

If you're an adult, then you can make responsible adult decisions. If you don't feel comfortable in a certain area then avoid the cache - plain and simple.

 

Hey Jerseytrex, do you realize that you're more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Paterson, Newark, Jersey City, Orange, or East Orange than you are in NYC?

 

Violent Crime Events per 100,000 people for 2003:

 

NYC = 734

Paterson = 819

Newark = 980

Jersey City = 1212

Orange = 1229

East Orange = 1987

 

Even sacred Hoboken has more property crimes per 100K (3758) than NYC (2183).

 

I just won't risk putting my fellow cachers in danger.

 

That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Number One I do consider myself an adult and I do make adult decisions!!!! I will not go for a cache by myself that I feel is too dangerous but that was not the issue I was bringing up here. The only reason I brought up this topic was because of your post at Dry Bridge where you almost got mugged or robbed. From your cold post I can see there is no point in caring about your well being or safety. I do think it it is the cachers responsibilty to post if the area they hid the cache in can be dangerous for other cachers. Especially for cachers who like to bring there kids with them. If you don't see that as logical then I have nothing more to say to you. The Hoboken cache is on a pier and I wouldn't consider that the ghetto!!!!!!!!! You can throw as many stats as you want at me. I never even said NYC was more dangerous than New Jersey. It's not even worth argueing with you.

[+Jerseytrex]

Next time i twist my ankle near a cache because there is a little debression in the earth there, should i come here to complain that the dangers were not listed?

How did we go from getting mugged to spraining your ankle?? That is like Night and Day. I just don't get it. If you don't see a difference between the two then I don't know what else to say.

[dboggny]

the comment i was refering to was, "Thus, it's simply polite to post possible dangers near a cache site." Does the word "dangers" mean all dangers or just the ones that YOU are concerned with?

db

[+Harry Dolphin]

We are, of course, working on a very similar Ten-Mile List for one member of our team.

Right off the bat, we have eliminated one cache from consideration. We do not have a boat, so we will never get to a certain cache on an island in the East River. We have decided, out of our respects for the dead, not to do cemetery caches. That is a personal decision; others have and do disagree with our decision. My Ten-Mile List also has a cache on an island, but I may be able to get to that one by inner tube.

Neither of our Ten-Mile Lists is sacrosanct, nor even doable. That does make it easier to decide that there are other caches that we cannot or will not do. Despite some not understanding the interest in clearing a radius, I consider it fun. I have a much better understanding now, of where I live. I have seen things that I haven’t seen living here for many decades.

Of course, my ten-mile radius covers a large section of Morris County, plus parts of Sussex and Warren. My caching partner’s radius covers all of Hudson and New York Counties, large parts of Bergen, Essex, the Bronx, and Queens Counties, and part of Kings County. That’s a much tougher territory to cover. Oddly, there are a similar number of caches in both our radii.

There are statistics, and gosh-darned statistics. Comparing New York City to Paterson is disingenuous, at best. There is, as far as I know, one cache in Paterson. What are the statistics comparing Paterson to northern Manhattan, for instance?

We have done a large number of the caches on Manhattan. I can name three where we felt very ill at ease. The one with the large rats has been archived, fortunately for us. Sorry, I do not stick my hands in holes with rats that large running around. As Dan pointed out, there are caches in New Jersey with similar, and with different dangers, though I have yet to be to any in Bergen County that I would consider ‘shady’. I will admit to almost having a heart attack when I almost stepped on a bear going between two caches in Wawayanda State Park. We were two to three feet apart when we saw each other. There is another in New Jersey that I will not do, due to my vertigo. Interesting cache, but I’ll pass on it.

Yes, I’m out of my milieu in the city. I’m a suburban Joisey boy. But I cannot say that I’ve ever felt in physical danger from other people, yet. Geocaching has brought me to some spectacular places in New York City. Wards Island, Roosevelt Island, Ferry Point. And, yes, Dan, we did find aqua5! Two of cacheninja’s down, and two to go…

Since clearing the radius is no longer sacrosanct, the cache in question has dropped very low on our list. When it is reset, we may, or may not search for it. We will give it consideration when it reappears. We will probably scope out the territory, and make our decision then. Or, we may just ignore it. Plenty of new ones appear. We work hard just to keep the status quo on the number in our radii. We’ll be in Queens on Saturday. We’re almost done with the area of Queens north of the Grand Central/Jackie Robinson Parkway.

As Harold Hill said (or sung) “You gotta know the territory.”

[dboggny]

"..."

 

....

Edited May 19, 2005 by dboggny

[+GPS_David]

I believe I read something somewhere about caching in shady places.

 

Don't pay dead, Don't run away, don't get in between them and their kids, don't throw your backpack down and DO NOT FEED them.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Dave

[dboggny]

"though I have yet to be to any [parks] in Bergen County that I would consider ‘shady’."

 

perhaps you need to visit more of them along the palisades parkway. Perhaps read a few past threads about cruising in said parks.

Edited May 19, 2005 by dboggny

[+Team Rampant Lion]

You definitely need those pants for a few of my caches! Snakes are everywhere up here in Sussex County, NJ . According to this week's "House" episode, NJ has three populous poisonous snakes - the timber rattler, copperhead and coral snake (I didn't know this last one - the things you learn from a sitcom).

 

I find "danger" hard to both interpret and communicate. Everywhere you go out by me features a bear overpopulation, poisonous snakes and occasionally dangerous terrain. I've gone both ways in communicating these risks. Have to admit, I've received more emails for overcommunicating than undercommunicating - go figure.

 

As previously noted, one persons danger is anothers adrenaline rush. I recently visited The View cache in Palm Desert, CA. The cache spot was insane at about 10,000 feet altitude, located about four feet from a 3,000' straight down drop. Getting it scared the you know what out of me - I loved it and it is my new favorite.

[+Jerseytrex]

Well it seems to me certian people like to fly off the handle way to fast.

I am the other half of team Jerseytrex and I knew this was going to happen as soon as my better half told me what they intended to post. Yes Camden is a s***hole. We know this. We got a firsthand look last April during a caching trip to Philly. Thats why we don't place caches there. Thats the whole point of the subject of this message forum!

If you feel you need to be so defensive maybe there is a reason for that huh?

[+Harry Dolphin]

"though I have yet to be to any [parks] in Bergen County that I would consider ‘shady’."

 

perhaps you need to visit more of them along the palisades parkway. Perhaps read a few past threads about cruising in said parks.

Ah! Is that the meaning of 'shady'. Hmmm.

And, Ah! Is that all that you got out of my post?!? Hmm...

I've done a few of the Palisades caches, and never seen such activity. I've been to many parks that are 'cruisy', and never felt threatened, nor in danger. We will be taking relatives on a caching tour above the cliffs soon. I'll let you know what I think then. You feel in danger of physical harm in a cruising area?!? Hmm... The cache in question is one where the cache seeker felt himself in imminent danger of being mugged...

Curious. I have read posts of people feeling ill at ease in cruising areas.

Since you mention it, the second cache area in the city, at which I felt ill-at-ease, was at a park with an observation area. We observed two gentlemen engaged in 'shady' activities, with a third watching. When we noticed them coming up the trail, we decided that that was an opportune time to leave. Though they were in the open, on a trail, whilst engaged in their 'shady' activities, we were not sure how they would appreciate having been observed. And we had decided that we were not going to find the clue for which we were searching, anyway.

I should say, from my observations anyway, that either 'shady' characters are more circumspect out this way, or that our parks are larger, offering more circumspect areas for 'shady' activities.

I had thought that the import of my earlier post was that one should be careful anywhere, and know the territory, and avoid dangerous situations, no matter where they are cching. You seem to have missed that entirely.

[+splicingdan]

A cache owner has absolutely no responsibility to supply information regarding the crime stats of the area. What do some people want?....An attribute for "ghetto" or "homeless"?

 

If you're an adult, then you can make responsible adult decisions. If you don't feel comfortable in a certain area then avoid the cache - plain and simple.

 

Hey Jerseytrex, do you realize that you're more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Paterson, Newark, Jersey City, Orange, or East Orange than you are in NYC?

 

Violent Crime Events per 100,000  people for 2003:

 

NYC = 734

Paterson = 819

Newark = 980

Jersey City = 1212

Orange = 1229

East Orange = 1987

 

Even sacred Hoboken has more property crimes per 100K (3758) than NYC (2183).

 

I just won't risk putting my fellow cachers in danger.

 

That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Number One I do consider myself an adult and I do make adult decisions!!!! I will not go for a cache by myself that I feel is too dangerous but that was not the issue I was bringing up here. The only reason I brought up this topic was because of your post at Dry Bridge where you almost got mugged or robbed. From your cold post I can see there is no point in caring about your well being or safety. I do think it it is the cachers responsibilty to post if the area they hid the cache in can be dangerous for other cachers. Especially for cachers who like to bring there kids with them. If you don't see that as logical then I have nothing more to say to you. The Hoboken cache is on a pier and I wouldn't consider that the ghetto!!!!!!!!! You can throw as many stats as you want at me. I never even said NYC was more dangerous than New Jersey. It's not even worth argueing with you.

Who's arguing and who said your cache was in the ghetto?

 

I'm merely putting your comments into perspective and debunking people's holier-than-thou perception of NJ.

 

You made it a point to single-out "areas" of NYC that you avoid when there's clearly areas of NJ that are as or more dangerous.

[+Packanack]

You mean like going over to Long Island for the NJ flag?!? 

 

Well Avro- that is exactly the kind of thing I mean, like I got mugged on the Tri Boro Bridge both going and coming, I got stuck in Yankee Game traffic on the Cross Bronx, and when I finally got through the traffic where all the drivers are trying to kill you, I find that I am 15 minutes late, I could still smell Zarah's perfume in the air. And not to mention the guardians of the cache that they have over there.

[mortonfox]

I got stuck in Yankee Game traffic on the Cross Bronx

I think your mistake was in using the Cross Bronx.

[mortonfox]

You don't have to clear out a radius. I never understood why people insist on doing that. I usually just head out to wherever the caching's good, regardless of distance from home.

I never understood how someone can reach 3000 caches in this area... Or have been to LI more than 5 times! To each their own, geocaching is goal-oriented, each goal is different.

Having a cleared radius as your #1 goal puts you at the mercy of every risky, poorly-planned, or irritating cache that happens to fall within that radius. Which describes the dilemma the OP is facing.

[+Perfect Tommy]

Just to make a little comment here, if this really was such a big issue, why are we more concerned with parking coordianates then warnings about how dangerous the big city is?

Because you're more likely to get mugged than find a parking spot in NYC? I kid. I kid.

 

Seriously, of course there are dangers - this is Fun City. KBer's recent log on a cache in Inwood Park gives you an idea. Most cachers have had positive experiences visiting that park though, but there is always the possibility of a Dry Bridge moment. Trust your gut or, if you have really bad instincts at self-preservation, bring a friend.

[+Candover]

The only reason I brought up this topic was because of your post at Dry Bridge where you almost got mugged or robbed.

I kinda figured that was why this came up.

 

In defense of my ill-omened little cache, I think Dan was on the receiving end of some particularly bad luck, but it wasn't from the local bums. (Though there's some signs of them if you keep heading north, I've never actually seen any unsavory characters down there... just guys from the neighborhood walking their dogs.) Beyond that... well, even if you didn't catch that it's in an abandoned section of the park from the description, you can't help but notice that when you start heading for it! Plenty of time to change your mind and turn back if you don't like the looks of it, same as you'd do if you were looking out across three hundred feet of thorns and poison ivy while wearing shorts.

 

I'd imagine that works in general -- anything in a sketchy or isolated area is probably going to look, well, sketchy or isolated.

 

(Not that safety isn't worth considering, of course! I intend to move Dry Bridge to a safer-looking area when I replace it, in the hopes that Dan's unfortunate encounter won't scare every potential future finder away.)

[+Packanack]

Rifle Camp Park is a notorious cruising park, where you will not be bothered, it contains a lot of caches. At first I was under the impression that there was drug activity going on, it was otherwise.

 

Weasel Brook Park between Clifton and Passaic looks to be totally innocuous, but at night it is closed due to the level of drug sale activity that was going on there and it was a dangerous place.

 

So sometimes there is just no telling.

Edited May 20, 2005 by Packanack

[dboggny]

you said, "Ah! Is that the meaning of 'shady'. Hmmm.

And, Ah! Is that all that you got out of my post?!? Hmm..."

 

I said, in my origional post to this thread, "The term 'shady' that you use is not only broad, but also relative."

 

so if you really read what i wrote in my first post, you would understand my point to be that people feel threatened by different things, and find different "dangers" threatening. The fact is, i feel threatened by very little for obvious reasons. Bottom line, people are bothered, scared what ever by different things. i go into the "inner city" and don't feel "threatned" by anyone. I get propositioned in a park and i get annoyed. the final point being, what one person thinks requires a "warning" on a cache page, some of us don't think twice about. a long hike is more dangerous to me being that i am out of shape and not a great outdoorsman then a walk into certain parks in different parts of NYC. I am a street guy, your an outdoors guy.

 

"Well it seems to me certian people like to fly off the handle way to fast."

 

your kidding right? no one has flown off the handle in this tread. You posted an opinion and thought. other people took issue with it and posted their opinions. No one was rude to you, mean or crude. people posted their feelings, just as you did with your first post. i posted, what i thought, were some usefull thoughts, ideas and advice. Others posted opinions and offered evidence to back their opinions. your accusation that some people "fly off the handle way to fast", is unfounded and unnecessary.

 

"If you feel you need to be so defensive maybe there is a reason for that huh? "

The only persons who are getting "defensive" in this thread are you.

 

you guys seem to be unable to handle opinions contrary to your own.

 

your origional post stated, "I knew this would be a touchy subject with some cachers but I want to here everyones opinion on this matter."

 

obviously, you didn't want to hear "everyones" opinion, unless it was the same as yours.

 

db

 

NOTE TO THE ADMIN THAT POSTED AND HAS NOW DELETED THEIR POST AFTER I QUOTED IT. THAT IS SHAMEFUL BEHAVIOR. IF YOU DONT WANT TO HAVE YOUR "..." MEMORIALIZED FOR EVER. DONT POST, PERIOD. SHAME ON YOU!

Edited May 20, 2005 by dboggny

[+Jerseytrex]

 

I just won't risk putting my fellow cachers in danger.

 

That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Hmmmm I wonder why I became defensive...

[+Jerseytrex]

"Well it seems to me certian people like to fly off the handle way to fast."

 

your kidding right? no one has flown off the handle in this tread. You posted an opinion and thought. other people took issue with it and posted their opinions. No one was rude to you, mean or crude. people posted their feelings, just as you did with your first post. i posted, what i thought, were some usefull thoughts, ideas and advice. Others posted opinions and offered evidence to back their opinions. your accusation that some people "fly off the handle way to fast", is unfounded and unnecessary.

 

"If you feel you need to be so defensive maybe there is a reason for that huh? "

The only persons who are getting "defensive" in this thread are you.

 

you guys seem to be unable to handle opinions contrary to your own.

 

your origional post stated, "I knew this would be a touchy subject with some cachers but I want to here everyones opinion on this matter."

 

obviously, you didn't want to hear "everyones" opinion, unless it was the same as yours.

 

db

 

NOTE TO THE ADMIN THAT POSTED AND HAS NOW DELETED THEIR POST AFTER I QUOTED IT. THAT IS SHAMEFUL BEHAVIOR. IF YOU DONT WANT TO HAVE YOUR "..." MEMORIALIZED FOR EVER. DONT POST, PERIOD. SHAME ON YOU!

Your kidding right?

 

"Thus, it's simply polite to post possible dangers near a cache site."

 

"Next time i twist my ankle near a cache because there is a little debression in the earth there, should i come here to complain that the dangers were not listed?"

 

Let me ask again what this has to do with high crime areas? By "dangers" I think it is obvious what was meant.

 

Like we need statistics to tell us what parts of our state and yours are unsavory.

Can I ask you this then, looking back at my original post did I mention any single cache at all? We used "SOME caches in NYC" as an example. Your right, we should have only named NJ caches. Because I have a MUCH larger chance of being mugged in Van Suan Park or Ramapo Mountain than in the Bronx right?

[+Jerseytrex]

"Well it seems to me certian people like to fly off the handle way to fast."

 

your kidding right? no one has flown off the handle in this tread. You posted an opinion and thought. other people took issue with it and posted their opinions. No one was rude to you, mean or crude. people posted their feelings, just as you did with your first post. i posted, what i thought, were some usefull thoughts, ideas and advice. Others posted opinions and offered evidence to back their opinions. your accusation that some people "fly off the handle way to fast", is unfounded and unnecessary.

 

"If you feel you need to be so defensive maybe there is a reason for that huh? "

The only persons who are getting "defensive" in this thread are you.

 

you guys seem to be unable to handle opinions contrary to your own.

 

your origional post stated, "I knew this would be a touchy subject with some cachers but I want to here everyones opinion on this matter."

 

obviously, you didn't want to hear "everyones" opinion, unless it was the same as yours.

 

db

 

NOTE TO THE ADMIN THAT POSTED AND HAS NOW DELETED THEIR POST AFTER I QUOTED IT. THAT IS SHAMEFUL BEHAVIOR. IF YOU DONT WANT TO HAVE YOUR "..." MEMORIALIZED FOR EVER. DONT POST, PERIOD. SHAME ON YOU!

The whole point of this topic was to discuss ways to keep eachother safe. Opinions were open from the begining but once someone brings up that I have put fellow cachers in danger well that is an attack on me. I will close this topic before it gets anymore out of hand. To each their own.