Geocacher dies in fall in Adelaide (Australia)

[+barefootjeff]

It's been reported in the Adelaide Advertiser that a 66-year-old man fell 20 metres to his death while geocaching. There's been no indication of who it was yet.

[+funkymunkyzone]

[+paticpatic]

Sending prayers

[+lee737]

Terrible news... RIP....

[+Team DEMP]

Very sad to hear about this.

This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office

[+Sheffy12065]

Very sad to hear about this.

This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office

 

Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.

[+cerberus1]

Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.

We have a cache that's off a wide, slight-sloping Game Lands trail, even say "an easy hike" on the cache page, yet we read of many who decide the way to it is over the huge cliff behind.

I'm not rating it higher because some don't get it...

[+J Grouchy]

Very sad to hear about this.

This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office

 

Based on the description, the CO isn't even living in the area anymore. Archive it.

[+bflentje]

Very sad to hear about this.

This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office

 

Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.

 

I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple.

[+bflentje]

Very sad to hear about this.

This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office

 

Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.

 

I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple.

 

And, accidents do happen, unfortunately.

[+Lil Devil]

Added to my Bookmark List. If anyone figures out who the cacher is, please let me know so I can update the memorial.

[+bflentje]

Very sad to hear about this.

This appears to be the cache:https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCKCHK_another-day-at-the-office

 

Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.

 

Hmm.. this one looks a lot less dangerous than the one I attempted this weekend in Minnesota which has the same terrain rating of 3..

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC54AF4_top-of-the-rock?guid=6acce9dc-bbbf-40db-ae4c-9d2c9d79bc51

[+niraD]

Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.

I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple.

I've read this a couple times, and I'm still not seeing the connection. The terrain rating is about how difficult the trip is, not how dangerous the trip is. The only reference to hazards is in the description of a T4.5 rating: "Extremely demanding movement over potentially hazardous terrain."

 

Or does the "potentially hazardous terrain" phrase trump everything else? Even if there is no "extremely demanding movement" involved, does any "potentially hazardous terrain" require a T4.5 rating? Does that include any cache in an area with rattlesnakes (or other potentially hazardous wildlife)? Does that include any cache in an area with eucalyptus (or other trees that might drop potentially hazardous branches on anyone below)? Does that include any cache that requires seekers to drive to the trailhead (or use any other potentially hazardous form of transportation)?

[+J Grouchy]

Good reason why COs should not underestimate the terrain difficulty of their caches. The official website should have a complain button for caches with too low of a rating. This is a chronic problem in the Adirondacks in nys. COs always have too low of a rating which makes it tough if a trail is doable or not.

I wouldn't disagree that caches are often under-rated or over-rated. But it comes down to the cacher knowing their own capabilities. Pure and simple.

I've read this a couple times, and I'm still not seeing the connection. The terrain rating is about how difficult the trip is, not how dangerous the trip is. The only reference to hazards is in the description of a T4.5 rating: "Extremely demanding movement over potentially hazardous terrain."

 

Or does the "potentially hazardous terrain" phrase trump everything else? Even if there is no "extremely demanding movement" involved, does any "potentially hazardous terrain" require a T4.5 rating? Does that include any cache in an area with rattlesnakes (or other potentially hazardous wildlife)? Does that include any cache in an area with eucalyptus (or other trees that might drop potentially hazardous branches on anyone below)? Does that include any cache that requires seekers to drive to the trailhead (or use any other potentially hazardous form of transportation)?

 

"Terrain" implies the land itself...mud/bogs, rocks, steep slopes, etc. Flora and fauna are separate hazards that can be noted in attributes.

[cezanne]

"Terrain" implies the land itself...mud/bogs, rocks, steep slopes, etc. Flora and fauna are separate hazards that can be noted in attributes.

 

I agree. However also when the land is regarded, difficulty and danger is not the same. There are risks which come from conditions like slippery ground, avalanches etc - this is something which is not part of the T-rating. It's up to each cacher to decide whether the conditions on the day of the envisaged visit match the personal abilities and experience level as well as the risk one is willing to take.

[+SwineFlew]

I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right.

 

Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger.

[+barefootjeff]

I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right.

 

Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger.

Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous.

 

There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants.

[+DragonsWest]

Sad to see this happen.

 

Respects to the lost cacher and the cacher's mates and family.

[+SwineFlew]

I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right.

 

Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger.

Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous.

 

There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants.

You dont really understand. I am sorry.

[+barefootjeff]

I found out about this over on Fark.com... and I come here to see if you guys are talking about this. I was right.

 

Many of you guys in here are wrong. The T is always important. High T always implied danger.

Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous.

 

There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants.

You dont really understand. I am sorry.

You're right, I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Not necessarily. A high T rating might just mean it's a long/steep hike or there's lots of thick scrub (I have a T4 like that), and a T5 just means special equipment is required, which could be a watercraft. Conversely, a T1 on the side of a busy road could be a lot more dangerous.

 

There are attributes for specific hazards like cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous areas, abandoned mines, hunters, snakes, ticks, thorns and poisonous plants.

+1

BTW no attributes describing any kind of danger on the cache page.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Pontiac_CZ