Maybe the rules really are different in other countries

December 25, 2011

I have recently read most if not all of the thread about recent tragedy in the European caching community. In that thread there was a good bit of discussion about the cultural differences in the activities and attitudes of cachers there compared to cachers in the United States. I have been mulling over the information in that thread for a good while.

This evening while browsing YouTube geocaching related videos I stumbled across a cache that I can not imagine being posted in the United States. I decided to start a new thread to get away from the specific incident in Germany and focus more on the differences in the geocaching culture between Europe and the United States.

Now the cache I came across has already be archived so hopefully it will not cause any issues discussing it here on the forum.

The cache is called Ninja Rope

The first thing that struck me was the location being under a bridge since...

A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

Placement does not meet all guidelines.

Cache placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and vehicular traffic including but not limited to archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries.

Cache defaces or destroys property (public or private) either in the hiding of or searching for the cache.

Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

_{Bolding mine}

Now I can't imagine a government agency in the United States providing written permission or a permit for a geocache to be placed under a bridge like this cache was placed.

The second thing that struck me about this cache was the encouragement of the cache owner for finders to "try to get the container without any equipment". This really jumped out at me because I had just seen

.

Now the camera angle makes this appear higher then pictures on the cache page show, but still this seems rather dangerous.

I try to envision attempting a cache like that but here in Indiana. And I honestly don't see how it could not end without me riding in either an ambulance or a police car. Climbing gets me the ambulance and a ladder would get the police car.

But it seems from some of the video comments that this may not be that unusual in that part of the world...

"Not that hard"

"For a geocacher normal "

"no rope! nice"

"we need more geo cache spots like these...."

Granted the majority of the comments were from the 'that was a crazy/stupid thing to attempt' faction but I don't think there were any that stated that it should not be a cache. Someone thought it might have been archived because it was on a bridge, but from translating the reviewer note it was because the cache had been disabled for too long. The reviewer did mention the idea of adopting the cache to another player though. So it seems to me the bridge was not an issue.

Anyway, from reading comments by some European cachers and then seeing this cache and video I am really starting to wonder if we are even playing the same game here.

So, without giving away active caches in the discussion, have I just been sheltered by caching in this part of the country and there are caches like this here in America, or is the game in Europe really different? And I am not talking extreme US caches like PUC#13 but more like this one in an urban setting.

_{And for the record even with the cache page and the video I still don't think the cache owner should be able to be sued if a cacher was injured here. Legally I could be wrong, but it still wouldn't be the proper thing to do IMO.}

9.3k · December 25, 2011

I suppose the question here is, would a cache that mimics this one be approved in the United States. I am not a Reviewer, nor do I play one on TV, though I did stay in a Holiday Inn once, so I'll offer my opinion. That and $11 will get you a crappy cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I know from past discussions with Reviewers that bridges, in general, are not really an issue. It takes a bit more. The bridges that Groundspeak does not want caches hidden under are those that would be a target for terrorist activities, or otherwise part of a significant roadway system. An old wooden two lane bridge on a quiet country road would likely be OK. The bridge pictured in the cache page gallery is most definitely part of a major roadway, so I doubt it would be published without question. At a minimum, I suspect the Reviewer would require explicit permission, rather than the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" of adequate permission.

It is at this point that things are less clear. For instance, if I were to hide such a cache, and upon questioning, I told my Reviewer that my "Aunt Edna" is the DOT foreman for this region and has authorized this placement, would he publish it without attempting to contact Aunt Edna? I'm not sure. I have built a relationship of trust with my Reviewers, because I am always up front about everything I do in this game. Because of this trust, is it possible that they would take my word for it?

That, I just don't know. I would hope not, but I really can't say for sure.

I will say that, in my opinion, none of the questions from my Reviewer would address safety issues.

December 25, 2011

The google earth street view shows people walking casually across and a little blue sign with a picture of a parent and child and a bicycle on it, this looks like it is primarily a pedestrian walkway.

9.3k · December 25, 2011

this looks like it is primarily a pedestrian walkway.

I will have to revise my earlier assessment. I followed in Mr Kaswa's footsteps and checked it out on Google Earth. He is right, I was wrong. This is definitely an elevated bike/hike path. So, everything I said about Aunt Edna being a DOT foreman would no longer apply. Aunt Edna will now have to switch hats to a management position in public recreation, with authority over that bike path. She would still be every bit as fictional, but with a new job description to gain false credibility.

December 25, 2011

Not being a highway bridge, perhaps "Aunt Edna" need be involved at all as adequate permission may still be good enough in that location?

ETA: I can't really speak to the original question about things being different as I've never really looked around my area for caches like this.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Mr Kaswa

December 25, 2011

That video was all kinds of scary to watch for me...

Firstly, I wouldn't take much stock in YouTube video comments. I have a video that's reached over 100k hits and I assure you about 90% of the comments are beyond asinine for most things on YouTube.

Second, I've been living in Europe since September and while I won't pretend to have an obvious grasp of how things are done yes, there are some differences. Most of these IMO are more on the fact that the "lame light post cache" concept really doesn't exist much around there- pretty much every cache I have come across has been unique and I can hardly think of any that I felt were put there just so someone could get a smiley. There are a lot more multis and puzzles as a result of this btw- they make up about a third of all the caches my Dutch friends have found usually (and the difficulty ranking is way off from what it would be in the USA by a star or so).

That said, your question is more about what acceptable risk/permission is and I honestly think that comes a lot more down to an individual community and country. I mean, I live in the city of Amsterdam and there you pretty much need permission from the city to hide each one, though yeah we famously have more than one under a bridge because, erm, it's Amsterdam. :anibad: So from what I've seen the Dutch seem to be more about interesting/clever/evil hides, but when I heard about the discussion of safety and permission aspect in Germany I confess my reaction was "oh, well makes sense, it's the Germans." As in their reputation for being outdoorsy/adventurous/resourceful tends to pass over to stuff like geocaching too for good reason as it's also a hobby right up their alley- don't forget something like a tenth of all caches in the world are hidden there if not more.

That's all I've got, hope it helps. Though disclaimer, I'm sure some European will wander through and tell me what all I said here was incorrect!

7.9k · December 25, 2011

In Arizona, we have/have had more than a few caches on pedestrian bridges.

None of them require(d) a rope or ladder to access.

One I remember was accessed by climbing in the girders from one end to the middle where the cache was. This was a pedestrian bridge over a (most of the time grassy) drainage channel, about a twenty foot drop. I suppose you could have used a ladder or rope if you wanted to.

A lot of them go over major freeways, but putting caches on them is allowed. I never understood this since 'blowing up' that bridge would be almost as disruptive as 'blowing up' any of the traffic-bearing overpasses. (BTW, we also have them on the traffic-bearing overpasses.)

So, could a cache similar to the example get published here in the USA?

I think so.

How long it might last would be another issue.

3.7k · December 25, 2011

I looked at the cache page and also the video. I'm fine actually with the idea, as there aren't any hidden dangers.

However, I am not happy with the cache page as is. It should contain more warnings. They definately should not be encouraging people to do this without equipment. It should say something like 'do only if you are experienced and have proper equipment. Do not do without proper equipment and experience.'

In my ideal world, any cache that encourages people to try something like this without equipment should NOT be published and should be immediately archived if it is found people are doing it without equipment.

10.2k · December 25, 2011

Definitely a pedestrian walkway. Dude is nuts, he must be a former member of the Finnish special forces. :laughing:

7.9k · December 25, 2011

...should be immediately archived if it is found people are doing it without equipment.

Would you expect a 'Boat Required' cache to get archived because people were swimming to it? :unsure:

December 25, 2011

That's so crazy!

Part of me has to give that guy props for being able to climb like that!

The responsible part of me doesn't want anyone to get hurt!

I think it's up to the individual to decide if they're going to find a cache and then how to get to it. If he feels safe doing that, then that's his deal.

Where I live, there are a TON of crazy things to do. Some of them I don't feel brave enough to do, so I don't do them. There are a lot of cliffs, loose rock, and steep slopes. I look at the terrain rating (which can mean different things to different people) and the description. If I have a google map, I might look at that too. Then I decide. Can I get to it safely? Can I get back down safely?

This cache isn't something I would do. I wish I was that brave and had that sort of climbing/wiggling ability, but I don't and I've climbed and scrambled into some pretty ridiculous places.

I'm sure somewhere in the US there's a cache like that. How long it's lasted is another story.

1.7k · December 25, 2011

In my ideal world, any cache that encourages people to try something like this without equipment should NOT be published and should be immediately archived if it is found people are doing it without equipment.

Look at the dumpster below. The fall would probably not be deadly. Maybe a broken leg/arm, but doubtfully deadly.

I'd be more worried of the lawsuit.

7.3k · December 25, 2011

...should be immediately archived if it is found people are doing it without equipment.

Would you expect a 'Boat Required' cache to get archived because people were swimming to it?

Or waiting until winter and walking on the ice?

December 25, 2011

So it seems that it could very well be that I have just been sheltered from caches like these with my limited geographic experience. :laughing:

To me a local government by giving me 'permission' to walk across a foot bridge is not necessarily giving me that same 'permission' to climb around under it. I suppose that falls into a somewhat murky grey area though. Clearly other people are interpreting the walking 'permission' as fair use of the entire structure. I just wonder what the local policeman would think about finding me on a ladder poking around under a public foot bridge downtown. :unsure:

7.9k · December 27, 2011

I just wonder what the local policeman would think about finding me on a ladder poking around under a public foot bridge downtown.

If you are appropriately dressed, with your service-bed 'work truck' parked nearby...probably nothing. But, that's a major part of the thrill of this type of cache...getting away 'clean'. :lol:

2.8k · December 27, 2011

That's so crazy!

Part of me has to give that guy props for being able to climb like that!

It appears to me had the normal skills of a person who does bouldering, except without a safety mat underneath.

1.6k · December 27, 2011

The google earth street view shows people walking casually across and a little blue sign with a picture of a parent and child and a bicycle on it, this looks like it is primarily a pedestrian walkway.

Merely stating that there is an elevated pedestrian bridge in the area would not in and of itself represent a hazard, as cache coordinates do not include a z azis

December 27, 2011

snip

The first thing that struck me was the location being under a bridge since...

snip

Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

_{Bolding mine}

snip

The google earth street view shows people walking casually across and a little blue sign with a picture of a parent and child and a bicycle on it, this looks like it is primarily a pedestrian walkway.

Merely stating that there is an elevated pedestrian bridge in the area would not in and of itself represent a hazard, as cache coordinates do not include a z azis

The statement is merely meant to point out the fact that it is a pedestrian bridge and not a highway bridge as the OP's bolding might suggest, and not to be a commentary on any "hazard" or "non hazard" of the z axis.

Edited to fix some poor quoting by me.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Mr Kaswa

19k · December 27, 2011

Here are two caches, both named "Deathwish", one in Sweden, and one in North Carolina. Check out the galleries on each:

http://coord.info/GCHVV2

http://coord.info/GC24NWZ

You may find some other interesting and dangerous caches from around the globe on this website: http://extreme-caching.com/index.php?p=1_23#

2.8k · December 27, 2011

Here are two caches, both named "Deathwish", one in Sweden, and one in North Carolina. Check out the galleries on each:

http://coord.info/GCHVV2

http://coord.info/GC24NWZ

You may find some other interesting and dangerous caches from around the globe on this website: http://extreme-caching.com/index.php?p=1_23#

The first one seems to violate the guidelines - it's on (under) a major highway and over train tracks! A twofer!

It would appear the rules are different in Europe.

19k · December 27, 2011

Here are two caches, both named "Deathwish", one in Sweden, and one in North Carolina. Check out the galleries on each:

http://coord.info/GCHVV2

http://coord.info/GC24NWZ

You may find some other interesting and dangerous caches from around the globe on this website: http://extreme-cachi...dex.php?p=1_23#

The first one seems to violate the guidelines - it's on (under) a major highway and over train tracks! A twofer!

It would appear the rules are different in Europe.

It is entirely possible that the European reviewers have different guidelines for RR tracks. Those that we go by are based upon U.S. RR trespassing laws, which may be different elsewhere. For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Here's a real interesting photo from that first cache. I guess somebody double-dog dared him to go out there:

Edited December 27, 2011 by knowschad

2.8k · December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

19k · December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

That's certainly not what I said, or meant to say. :huh: But they may handle it differently than in the U.S.

December 28, 2011

That's so crazy!

Part of me has to give that guy props for being able to climb like that!

It appears to me had the normal skills of a person who does bouldering, except without a safety mat underneath.

I'm positive he's a climber or goes bouldering, but considering I don't, I gotta give him props. People give me props when I do something routine for me at work. They don't do exactly what I do, so they're impressed. I don't worship this dude or think he now walks on water, but good for him!

19k · December 28, 2011

That's so crazy!

Part of me has to give that guy props for being able to climb like that!

It appears to me had the normal skills of a person who does bouldering, except without a safety mat underneath.

I'm positive he's a climber or goes bouldering, but considering I don't, I gotta give him props. People give me props when I do something routine for me at work. They don't do exactly what I do, so they're impressed. I don't worship this dude or think he now walks on water, but good for him!

I would have forgotten my pen.

9.3k · December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

Or because those countries which deal with terrorism on a regular basis have a better grasp on what would represent a real target, versus what some paranoid goober in the states think might be a target? :unsure:

2.8k · December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

That's certainly not what I said, or meant to say. But they may handle it differently than in the U.S.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply that. Just questioning why rules should be different for Europe (if they are).

2.3k · December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

That's certainly not what I said, or meant to say. But they may handle it differently than in the U.S.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply that. Just questioning why rules should be different for Europe (if they are).

I think it's called politics....

Among other things, like different types of targets, etc.

--Larry

December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

Or because those countries which deal with terrorism on a regular basis have a better grasp on what would represent a real target, versus what some paranoid goober in the states think might be a target?

It's honestly pretty much this. As I said earlier there are several caches under bridges in Amsterdam, and pretty much all bridges are for roads... I've even found one that was right next to a bridge next to a police station!

The whole terrorism thing isn't dealt with in the same way for various reasons we won't get into here, plain and simple.

December 28, 2011

Here are two caches, both named "Deathwish", one in Sweden, and one in North Carolina. Check out the galleries on each:

http://coord.info/GCHVV2

http://coord.info/GC24NWZ

You may find some other interesting and dangerous caches from around the globe on this website: http://extreme-caching.com/index.php?p=1_23#

The first one seems to violate the guidelines - it's on (under) a major highway and over train tracks! A twofer!

It would appear the rules are different in Europe.

For the first one is it even legal for someone to climb/rappel a bridge like that? And some of the pics sends me shivers seeing folks standing on the metal beam with no security equipment. Its a wonder nobody got killed yet.

Same for the second one, although probably not death but serious injury.

I do question why these caches are allowed... these caches do put folks in a dangerous position! So many things can go wrong with catastrophic consequences.

Geocaching is not worth the risk.

Where is the common sense? Anyone cares to dispute why caches in dangerous places should not be allowed?

Edited December 28, 2011 by ZeMartelo

2k · December 28, 2011

For the first one is it even legal for someone to climb/rappel a bridge like that? And some of the pics sends me shivers seeing folks standing on the metal beam with no security equipment. Its a wonder nobody got killed yet.

Same for the second one, although probably not death but serious injury.

I do question why these caches are allowed... these caches do put folks in a dangerous position! So many things can go wrong with catastrophic consequences.

Geocaching is not worth the risk.

Where is the common sense? Anyone cares to dispute why caches in dangerous places should not be allowed?

Looks like someone forgot to warn people that shimmying out on the steel beam without a rope harness was dangerous. <_<

December 28, 2011

Looks like someone forgot to warn people that shimmying out on the steel beam without a rope harness was dangerous.

If you look at the gallery theres other folks that I guess did the same thing to get to the cache.

Its unbelievable.

2k · December 28, 2011

Looks like someone forgot to warn people that shimmying out on the steel beam without a rope harness was dangerous.

If you look at the gallery theres other folks that I guess did the same thing to get to the cache.

Its unbelievable.

Thousands of seekers might have approached that way, but really, you think it needs to be said?

If so, why? What is NOT obvious about that danger?

2.8k · December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

Or because those countries which deal with terrorism on a regular basis have a better grasp on what would represent a real target, versus what some paranoid goober in the states think might be a target?

It's honestly pretty much this. As I said earlier there are several caches under bridges in Amsterdam, and pretty much all bridges are for roads... I've even found one that was right next to a bridge next to a police station!

The whole terrorism thing isn't dealt with in the same way for various reasons we won't get into here, plain and simple.

So the reviewers are allowed to determine what is and what is not a terrorist target? Wouldn't it be easier to just apply the guideline consistently across the board?

2.3k · December 28, 2011

For that matter, even the "terrorist target" guidelines may well be interpreted differently in other countries. I'd like to know if that is true.

Yes, because terrorists never attack in Europe. []

Or because those countries which deal with terrorism on a regular basis have a better grasp on what would represent a real target, versus what some paranoid goober in the states think might be a target?

It's honestly pretty much this. As I said earlier there are several caches under bridges in Amsterdam, and pretty much all bridges are for roads... I've even found one that was right next to a bridge next to a police station!

The whole terrorism thing isn't dealt with in the same way for various reasons we won't get into here, plain and simple.

So the reviewers are allowed to determine what is and what is not a terrorist target? Wouldn't it be easier to just apply the guideline consistently across the board?

Lots of reviewers live in the general geographical area for which they are reviewing and likely would know about the different views on terrorist targets in those geographical areas.

December 28, 2011

Thousands of seekers might have approached that way, but really, you think it needs to be said?

If so, why? What is NOT obvious about that danger?

Thats because we cant administer common sense into folks.

Its a personal decision that can be costly and I guess the question is how many destroyed lifes is the geocaching community willing to accept to continue to accept these kind of caches?

Edited December 28, 2011 by ZeMartelo

19k · December 28, 2011

For the first one is it even legal for someone to climb/rappel a bridge like that? And some of the pics sends me shivers seeing folks standing on the metal beam with no security equipment. Its a wonder nobody got killed yet.

Same for the second one, although probably not death but serious injury.

I do question why these caches are allowed... these caches do put folks in a dangerous position! So many things can go wrong with catastrophic consequences.

Geocaching is not worth the risk.

Where is the common sense? Anyone cares to dispute why caches in dangerous places should not be allowed?

Why do some people climb mountains? Why do others skydive or drive race cars or do any of a number of high-risk activities? If you don't want to do them, you shouldn't. But for you to say that they should not be allowed simply because you don't understand it does not seem right to me.

19k · December 28, 2011

Thousands of seekers might have approached that way, but really, you think it needs to be said?

If so, why? What is NOT obvious about that danger?

Thats because we cant administer common sense into folks.

Don't you try to administer your idea of common sense into me. I have my own, thank you. You wouldn't want me to try to administer my idea of common sense into your life, would you?

December 28, 2011

I don't get it.

If you think it's too dangerous, don't do it, but don't try to tell me what I can or can't do, because I am perfectly capable of deciding that on my own. <_<

Should I go out on that beam and accept the danger I am putting my life in (and after looking at this, I'd probably do it) then I have to live with the consequences.

Some people like to cache safe, and that's fine. There are plenty of really nice caches out there where you don't have to put your life on the line, but for some of us, it's the thrill that makes it exiting.

As I have already stated on another post, this is a lot like snowboarding to me:

You got blue,red and black slopes, and you can go into unmarked territory.

If you want to be safe, choose the blue or red.

If you want thrill or are really good, choose the black.

If you want to risk your life, go off-slope, but be aware that you could get into an avalanche and die.

It's a free choice and everyone has to decide how much risk he is willing to take, but noone will force anyone to go beyond their capabilities...

2k · December 28, 2011

Thousands of seekers might have approached that way, but really, you think it needs to be said?

If so, why? What is NOT obvious about that danger?

Thats because we cant administer common sense into folks.

Its a personal decision that can be costly and I guess the question is how many destroyed lifes is the geocaching community willing to accept to continue to accept these kind of caches?

I was wrong. That listing does say, "For all other of you, (if there are any left??) this is a 5/5 because than you need GEAR!"

So anyone out on that beam without gear had at least 2 warnings. 1 on the listing and the most important one when they looked with their own eyes.

I don't skydive, scuba dive, or rock climb. But there are plenty of people who do enjoy those activities AND plenty of people have died as a result. If you or anyone else enjoys that kind of adrenaline rush, I say more power to you. It's not me accepting your death, it is you and yours. I imagine the families of rock climbers would get chills down their spine if they knew just what their family member was doing. But they don't really get a say in whether or not that family member free climbs or not. Each and every one of us makes the decision as to the risks we take.

I just feel that as far as geocaching goes, caches should adhere to the guidelines. Chances are pretty good that if the cache adheres to the guidelines, it was probaby hidden by a responsible geocacher. Most responsible hiders are going to point out dangers they are aware of on D/T 4 and 5 caches.

But even if they don't, as finders we are all responsible for assessing our own limits.

Even if the first cache is illegally placed and the CO did not put the warning that the cache required GEAR, you, as the finder, should be able to see that clearly it does. If you choose to ignore that fact, then it is no one's fault but your own if you attempt the cache and fall to your death.

Some dangers just don't require spelling out when they are obvious even to the thickest headed of people. (But in this case, the danger was noted.)

As the wise and liquored up Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

14k · December 30, 2011

[quote name=Ot

is.Gore' timestamp='1325087219' post='4931034]

As I have already stated on another post, this is a lot like snowboarding to me:

You got blue,red and black slopes, and you can go into unmarked territory.

If you want to be safe, choose the blue or red.

If you want thrill or are really good, choose the black.

If you want to risk your life, go off-slope, but be aware that you could get into an avalanche and die.

It's a free choice and everyone has to decide how much risk he is willing to take, but noone will force anyone to go beyond their capabilities...

I've never snowboarded but I've downhill skied for many years, cutting my teeth on the steep +

lopes of Squaw Valley, skied along with a couple ski patrols in Colorado for four weeks and raced for a corporate team for a few years. What you're missing here when someone decides to want the thrill and chooses black diamond runs when they're actually beyond their capabilities is that they may be putting others in jeopardy. I've seen numerous accidents as a result of someone skiing out of control because they were on a slope beyond their capabilities. In the case of going off slope when avalanche conditions are high they're not only putting themselves in danger but they're putting those that have to rescue them in jeopardy as well.

Although the caches described earlier probably wouldn't put someone else in danger but I assume that cachers choosing to take the risk have families and friends that would probably care just a little if someone was injured or killed while going for the thrill of finding a cache.

2k · December 30, 2011

Although the caches described earlier probably wouldn't put someone else in danger but I assume that cachers choosing to take the risk have families and friends that would probably care just a little if someone was injured or killed while going for the thrill of finding a cache.

Same can be said for most participants of extreme sports.

There is nothing wrong with extreme caches. The problem arises with how they are implemented and sought after.

8.6k · December 30, 2011

For the first one is it even legal for someone to climb/rappel a bridge like that? And some of the pics sends me shivers seeing folks standing on the metal beam with no security equipment. Its a wonder nobody got killed yet.

Same for the second one, although probably not death but serious injury.

I do question why these caches are allowed... these caches do put folks in a dangerous position! So many things can go wrong with catastrophic consequences.

Geocaching is not worth the risk.

Where is the common sense? Anyone cares to dispute why caches in dangerous places should not be allowed?

Why do some people climb mountains? Why do others skydive or drive race cars or do any of a number of high-risk activities? If you don't want to do them, you shouldn't. But for you to say that they should not be allowed simply because you don't understand it does not seem right to me.

This. Exactly this.

MrsB

Edited to add: I'll never get to do some of these extreme geocaches but because they are permitted I get to enjoy the experiences of other younger/fitter/more daring geocachers vicariously, by watching the cache pages. e.g.

This just in:

empassant found [Traditional Cache] Erta Ale Volcano:

"Thank you for the Cache close to the gate of Hell. The volcano is one of the most spectacular places I have ever been to. Me and two other soon-to-be geocachers found the logbook under the lava tunnel ceiling two days before christmas 2011. We split from the group and after the find we returned back to the volcano rim to see much more volcano activity. Thanks to the cache we had the volcano just for the three of us. This is definitely my most valuable find. There was only log book in torn plastic bag, so we replaced the plastic bag and placed the log book in empty plastic bottle to get a bit more protection.

Again thanks a lot for placing to such an amazing place."

Edited December 30, 2011 by The Blorenges

Maybe the rules really are different in other countries

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation