[weezulguy]

Yesterday while geocaching on a main road that is pretty well traveled, my girlfriend and I came across several caches that were hidden next to the road somewhere where I felt that there was no place to pull off safely to cache. I posted a log to each cache with my opinion on the safety of these caches, and the owner promptly deleted all of my logs (he owns all three of them). There are plenty of nice back roads in the area that offer more safe alternatives, and I voiced my opinion about this in my posts. Is there some sort of way to report unsafe types of caches? I realized how bad of a situation this can create when we were attempting to find one next to a road a couple of weeks ago around dusk...our better sense finally came out and we left.

I looked around the site for awhile but cant seem to find the appropriate area to address this, thanks for any advice.

[Keelmann And Cici]

I'd say if you really feel they're dangerous, post a "needs archiving" log. Even if the owner deletes it, that notifies Groundspeak of the issue.

[Sapience Trek]

For the most part, geocaches are not reviewed with safety as a factor. Each individual is responsible to decide the safety of each cache and take responsibility for their own actions. There are many geocaches up trees, under water, on the sides of cliffs, etc ... that could be dangerous if not approached with safety in mind.

In this case, there is no requirement to park right next to the cache by the road side. Park up or down the road where there may be a safe spot to park.

[Gitchee-Gummee]

Nothing says that you need to get all the caches.

If you don't like climbing a tree, don't go for it. If you don't like close-by traffic, don't go for it. If you don't like rappelling, don't go for it. If you don't like rope bridges..... etc., etc.

[ohmelli]

I had come across several caches nearby where I live that I "thought" to be dangerous -- needing to park on the shoulder of the highway to get to... until I pulled up my maps. Did you pull up a map to see if there was a back road that gave you better parking near these caches? I only mention it because I see you are a tadpole, and having only been caching for 2 months myself, I know how easy it is to "misjudge" and think that just because your GPS brings you "HERE" that "HERE" must be the best location! Often times Madame GPS does NOT KNOW EVERYTHING! Before reporting ANYTHING, I think I would pm the CO and ASK if there is a better place to park... would save everyone a lot of aggravation.

[niraD]

Ditto Sapience Trek's comment: Just because the cache is near a highway doesn't mean it's a quick park-and-grab cache.

I've found a number of caches where there was no safe/legal parking near the cache, and you needed to park elsewhere and walk/bicycle to the cache. In some cases, the whole point of the cache was figuring out how to access the cache in a safe and legal manner.

[weezulguy]

The road that theyre located on is a major highway going through marshland, pretty sure about the locations, read several other comments about the safety as well. There is no nearby parking available, a mile walk alongside the roadway is about the only option. The cars whiz by in this location at 60+.

fyi been geocaching for about four years now, sorry if I'm still a tadpole ;-)

I expressed my concerns in the logs in hopes that the person would at least modify the descriptions to give people a heads' up, didnt expect such a reaction I guess.

Thanks for everyone's input.

[T.D.M.22]

Who says you have to park on the side of the road? Safety is relative, and depends solely on you. If you want the road caches badly enough, go during low traffic and wear a safety vest and park where you can. Just because you could get hurt is not sufficient to archive a cache. By that reasoning any caches in a forest should be archived, there is lightning, bears, mountain lions, poisonous plants and snakes. As has been pointed out LOTS of time here, it is your responsibility for safety. IMO the owner had good reason to delete your logs.

[B+L]

T.D.M.22, on 30 April 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Safety is relative, and depends solely on you.

You seem to be unaware, weezulguy, that there is no such thing as a ill-placed cache or a negligent cache owner. Any perceived flaws are merely the result of your unfortunate atitude. You really should keep such concerns to yourself or you risk spoiling the fun for everyone else.

[NYPaddleCacher]

B+L, on 30 April 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

T.D.M.22, on 30 April 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Safety is relative, and depends solely on you.

You seem to be unaware, weezulguy, that there is no such thing as a ill-placed cache or a negligent cache owner. Any perceived flaws are merely the result of your unfortunate atitude. You really should keep such concerns to yourself or you risk spoiling the fun for everyone else.

Whoa. Completely uncalled for. Weezulguy has a right to express an opinion that the caches are dangerous, and even if that doesn't mean the caches that caches should be archived, it's information that other potential seekers of the caches might want to know. A reviewer already stated that caches are not reviewed for safety so there's no chance of weezulguys "attitude" spoiling the fun for everyone else. If weezelguy posted a note or dnf on those caches and explained why he didn't try to find them the CO should have left them intact.

A couple of years ago I was FTF on a cache near me that was along a trail. Between the trailhead and the cache location there was a section that got within about 10' of s steep drop off. From the trail, it was almost a straight drop for about 150' into a rocky creek bed. I mentioned in my log that the trail could be unsafe for small children or pets. The CO thanked me, as did several other local cachers that read my log. I wasn't trying to spoil the fun for anyone, but just letting others know of the potential danger, and that's all that weezelguy did as well.

[Glenn]

weezulguy, on 30 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

Yesterday while geocaching on a main road that is pretty well traveled, my girlfriend and I came across several caches that were hidden next to the road somewhere where I felt that there was no place to pull off safely to cache. I posted a log to each cache with my opinion on the safety of these caches, and the owner promptly deleted all of my logs (he owns all three of them). There are plenty of nice back roads in the area that offer more safe alternatives, and I voiced my opinion about this in my posts. Is there some sort of way to report unsafe types of caches? I realized how bad of a situation this can create when we were attempting to find one next to a road a couple of weeks ago around dusk...our better sense finally came out and we left.

I looked around the site for awhile but cant seem to find the appropriate area to address this, thanks for any advice.

There are many ways to state your opinion. Some ways are tactful and others can offend even when the intention wasn't to offend. Assuming that you made a tactful comment on the perceived safety issues on the cache in a DID NOT FIND log then I don't see why the CO would take issue and delete your log. Because the CO has the power to delete logs you are going to have to contact the CO and find a way to work with him if you want your log to stay.

I've used a DNF to let me know that needed to bring safety equipment (i.e. ladder, better boots, climbing gear, etc.) with me the next time I attempted to find a cache. If there is a reason that I won't return to find the cache I make sure to note it in my DNF log too. After all the DNF log is great tool and can be an invaluable time saver. But I've learned that I have to be careful as to not be so biased in my log that I makes other people think that something is terribly wrong with the cache and that they shouldn't attempt it either. If there is a safety issue with a cache that can cause injury and/or death that can't be mitigated with safety equipment then bring it to the attention of the Reviwers with a NM log.

[terrkan78]

I've seen plenty of caches like this. I slow down as I drive by, and I shake my head at the thought of either parking my car in the middle of the highway, with hazards on, to get a cache in a guardrail (bad plan), or pulling over a mile down the road and walking back on a narrow shoulder with cars whizzing past (bad plan). I've wanted to say "What were you thinking?" on the cache page, but the thought of angering the CO is enough to keep me from doing it.

I get why you posted a log on the cache pages, and had the CO let them stand, they would have been a nice warning for future cache seekers. Sometimes when I'm truly irritated over a safety issue (one CO had a cache marked as child friendly in the middle (literally) of the most pedestrian-unfriendly intersection I've ever encountered - I was glad I scouted it out before taking the kids), I try to couch a warning in an otherwise polite/nice log. I usually have to wait a day or two before submitting the log, because my negative attitude comes through too loudly if I post it right away.

[briansnat]

Not a getting started issue. moving to appropriate forum

[knowschad]

weezulguy, on 30 April 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

The road that theyre located on is a major highway going through marshland, pretty sure about the locations, read several other comments about the safety as well. There is no nearby parking available, a mile walk alongside the roadway is about the only option. The cars whiz by in this location at 60+.

fyi been geocaching for about four years now, sorry if I'm still a tadpole ;-)

I expressed my concerns in the logs in hopes that the person would at least modify the descriptions to give people a heads' up, didnt expect such a reaction I guess.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Send an email to the cache owner asking politely how one is supposed to access those caches. Just because several other cachers have also seen the highway as the only access point does not make it true. It may well be true, but the cache owner is the one that would know that. Please let us know what you learn!

[SwineFlew]

Like this one... YIKE!!! http://coord.info/GCMKGT

Its on a mile maker and about 3 feet or so from the white line. This road is a fast hwy with truck traffics as well.

However, there is a dangerous attribute on the cache page. So...its "ok".

This post has been edited by SwineFlew: 01 May 2012 - 12:44 PM

[B+L]

NYPaddleCacher, on 01 May 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

B+L, on 30 April 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

T.D.M.22, on 30 April 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Safety is relative, and depends solely on you.

You seem to be unaware, weezulguy, that there is no such thing as a ill-placed cache or a negligent cache owner. Any perceived flaws are merely the result of your unfortunate atitude. You really should keep such concerns to yourself or you risk spoiling the fun for everyone else.

Whoa. Completely uncalled for. Weezulguy has a right to express an opinion that the caches are dangerous, and even if that doesn't mean the caches that caches should be archived, it's information that other potential seekers of the caches might want to know. A reviewer already stated that caches are not reviewed for safety so there's no chance of weezulguys "attitude" spoiling the fun for everyone else. If weezelguy posted a note or dnf on those caches and explained why he didn't try to find them the CO should have left them intact.

It's called sarcasm and it was not even directed at weezulguy.

[The VanDucks]

Sometimes - not always - the cache may show up on your GPS map as beng near a major road, but it's actually in a location near the road with access from another, safer place. We have tried to suggest before on the forums that cache owners always give parking coordinates for their caches, since the geocacher seeking that cache may have no idea of the local parking restrictions.

We have a cache in a nice wooded area with access from a paved trail, but on the geocaching map it looks as though you could almost grab the cache from the busy four lane parkway nearby, with no parking along the roadside. We give a parking coordinate on the cache page and have to hope that finders will use their common sense and not stop along the road.

(I know some cachers think coming up with a place to park is part of the challenge, but how sensible is that with today's gas prices?)

[Nomesquad]

If you get there and it looks bad, don't do it? Where's that little voice that kicks in and says, "You know, that might be a bad idea?"

[NYPaddleCacher]

SwineFlew, on 01 May 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Like this one... YIKE!!! http://coord.info/GCMKGT

Its on a mile maker and about 3 feet or so from the white line. This road is a fast hwy with truck traffics as well.

However, there is a dangerous attribute on the cache page. So...its "ok".

At least there appears to be safe parking nearby. I have to wonder if for some of the caches that are along roads, but where one can't park close to the cache, they're perceived as unsafe because the proliferation of park-n-grab caches has given a lot of people the perception that caches are supposed to be close to where one can park. A half mile walk along the side of a road, as long as there's a reasonable barrier would be fairly safe, but if someone insists on parking right next to the cache it might not be so safe.

Sometimes including recommended parking coordinates might be a better idea than posting a dangerous attribute.

[4wheelin_fool]

All caches are extremely and inherently hazardous after downing a 12 pack of Yuengling.

[CanadianRockies]

weezulguy, on 30 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

I posted a log to each cache with my opinion on the safety of these caches, and the owner promptly deleted all of my logs (he owns all three of them).

If you used inappropriate language in your logs, then the cache owner is within their rights to delete them. But they cannot delete your logs simply because you warn others about safety issues.

If you feel it's important to warn other geocachers about these dangers, then you can contact Groundspeak and ask them to restore your logs. Before doing so, you should read this section of the guidelines.

[medoug]

For leap day (Feb. 29), a local cacher placed 29 caches each spaced about 0.2 miles apart along a 4-lane highway with 65 mph speed limit and considerable truck traffic. Each hide was rated as an easy park'n'go. At least there is a reasonable shoulder for pulling off onto. This is the only 4-lane highway in the entire county.

Personally, I would never hide such a power trail because of the safety issue. I also don't plan to look for any of them because of the safety issue, plus I don't really want to encourage this type of hide. Likewise, each individual must weigh the enjoyment they might receive from these hunts versus the safety risk involved.

[4wheelin_fool]

Every person knows the risk when they retrieve it. If there is no stopping permitted and no way to walk or bicycle it, perhaps they should be archived. Otherwise if it is a legal area, it should be fine.

[Davequal]

Good luck, it is up to each cacher to determine if they have the skills to retrieve a cache.

[popokiiti]

The last I heard, here in BC at least, no more roadside or rest stop caches are allowed. Those in existence stay. That could have changed now... Rural country roads are a different matter in my opinion....busy highway? We usually find there is a safer way in and parking - if it were right on the highway, we'd pass on by. There are always other caches.....
We've noticed that cars slow when we're parked off the side of the road - could be the antennae on one cachemobile or the electronic gizmos that make them think we're one of the police ghost cars..

[jellis]

there are a lot of power trails that have caches placed like that.

[Mr.Yuck]

C'mon now. If there's anyone out there who thinks people are placing cheap, lazy roadside micros (especially several along a stretch of road) and they themselves, or they expect you to, walk 1 mile round trip for it, I have a bridge to sell you.

medoug, on 01 May 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

For leap day (Feb. 29), a local cacher placed 29 caches each spaced about 0.2 miles apart along a 4-lane highway with 65 mph speed limit and considerable truck traffic. Each hide was rated as an easy park'n'go. At least there is a reasonable shoulder for pulling off onto. This is the only 4-lane highway in the entire county.

Personally, I would never hide such a power trail because of the safety issue. I also don't plan to look for any of them because of the safety issue, plus I don't really want to encourage this type of hide. Likewise, each individual must weigh the enjoyment they might receive from these hunts versus the safety risk involved.

Interesting. Sounds like a U.S. Route, the predecessor to the Interstate Highway? With cross roads, but few if any traffic lights, and businesses or even homes along it? No thanks. Be advised your "not finding them so as to not encourage them" policy will have no affect, and probably no locals will even notice the absence of your name in the logs. Especially when 29 easy smileys are involved.

Many of you don't know this, as it was in the regional Mid-Atlantic forum, but Philadelphia teen and well known forum poster Coldgears proposed New Jersey's first roadside micro power trail along a busy County Highway a couple months ago. He was inundated by posts from Southern New Jersey locals (and even people who street viewed miles of the road) that it was way too busy of a road, and unsafe. Fortunately, there were no "go for it, and the adults can find a safe place to park, or ignore it" type posts.

[Wadcutter]

If you don't think they're safe then don't do them. Nothing or no one forces you or anyone else to attempt a cache that is unsafe for you. What you may think is unsafe another may feel is perfectly fine. Don't try being a mother to others. If you attempt a cache that is beyond your capabilities and you get hurt then take it as a learning lesson just as you did when a child and put your hand on a hot item. However, most people as they get older develop a sense as to what is dangerous for them and what isn't. Others just take a little longer to learn those skills. Still others never do.

[Snoogans]

I also agree that safety is a personal responsibility, but that also extends to the CO and the finders as well.

The geocaching.com disclaimer that is on every cache page only protects the listing service. It does not protect the cache owner and if you think it does, get your lawyer to take a look at it for you.

It would behoove cache owners to consider the safety of others and provide additional parking coords and safety information when called for. Every cache does not need to be a bubble wrapped 1/1, but as a CO myself with caches that are inherently dangerous by the nature of the terrain in which they are hidden, I want the finders of my caches to show up prepared. I use the cache attributes and give additional information when needed.

Finders should also consider the safety of others when logging their experience of a particular cache. As a finder, I would not post a NA log based on my perception of inherent danger, but I would let others know if I experienced a near miss incident.

I will save my NA logs for caches that I KNOW do not meet the listing guidelines or caches I've already found that I know are missing. Thanks very much.

This post has been edited by Snoogans: 02 May 2012 - 05:44 AM

[ByronForestPreserve]

I noticed a couple of caches that looked easy on the page...even had the "wheelchair accessible" icon. But when we arrived...no parking, no shoulder--in fact a steep hill just past the white line--and the cache was on a guardrail at the start of a bridge over a deep river (with no pedestrian area). Um...wheelchair accessible??? Fine if I decide to pull off somehow and take the risk myself, but I'd have been mad if I'd looked specifically for wheelchair easy sites and arrived there.

It would have been nice to read that in the logs before I got out there. We'd made the trip, so I got the short straw to run down the hill, along the verge and back up to sign us all in. Logs are good.

[ras_oscar]

everybody has an opinion on cache safety. Here's mine

1. I am responsible for my safety. Nobody else. If I am caching and fall off a 150 foot cliff it's probably because I was paying too much attention to the gps.

2. I will never ever find all the caches in the world. Its a simple fact of life. Once I understood that, Geocaching became far more pleasant.

3. Just because I feel uncomfortable going for a particular cache doesn't mean others feel the same way. We are all individuals. It's likely that in 10 years my sense of what is "safe" will have morphed again. I recently scored a find that was on my list for several years. It required me to hike along a narrow and busy highway, cross a stream and wack through thorns bushes that were 12 feet high. This is and will remain one of my most memorable finds. I am not likely to make such an attempt as an octogenarian. That doesn't mean it's an unsafe cache that should be archived.

[hzoi]

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

weezulguy, on 30 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

I posted a log to each cache with my opinion on the safety of these caches, and the owner promptly deleted all of my logs (he owns all three of them).

If you used inappropriate language in your logs, then the cache owner is within their rights to delete them. But they cannot delete your logs simply because you warn others about safety issues.

If you feel it's important to warn other geocachers about these dangers, then you can contact Groundspeak and ask them to restore your logs. Before doing so, you should read this section of the guidelines.

CR, if they were notes, not found it logs, I disagree. If they were found it logs, then yes, the owner shouldn't have deleted them and weezulguy could appeal to Groundspeak tor estore them. But if they were notes, I don't think they're entitled to have them restored. In fact, reviewers will often weigh in on other caches with a lot of notes, such as Mingo or the Tunnel of Light A.P.E. cache, and specifically tell people to stop leaving notes and turning a cache page into a forum -- becausee that's what this forum is for.

[Shop99er]

Your safety is your responsibility. A good CO will look at that as the cache is being developed, but it's still up to you. Make your own decision.

Posting an NA log is not a good option in this case IMO.

You said you knew where there were back roads near the caches. I assume you get to them from the road in question. Why don't you park on them and walk to the caches?

On the other hand, if you don't like them, don't hunt them. Nothing says you need to find them all. Put them on your ignore list.

[Mr.Benchmark]

weezulguy said:

There are plenty of nice back roads in the area that offer more safe alternatives, and I voiced my opinion about this in my posts.

Shop99er, on 02 May 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

You said you knew where there were back roads near the caches. I assume you get to them from the road in question. Why don't you park on them and walk to the caches?

How could you possibly assume this? Maybe it's true - maybe it isn't. The way I read the OP's post was that there were nice back roads better suited for the placement of roadside caches. Without knowing anything more, it's hard to decide whether or not the caches are really in a dangerous location. It's not like weezulguy was complaining about the long walk from safe parking... Or that he was complaining that people were tempted to park in the wrong place when a safe alternative was available. Maybe that is really what he meant, but it's not how I read it.

[CanadianRockies]

hzoi, on 02 May 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 01 May 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

weezulguy, on 30 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

I posted a log to each cache with my opinion on the safety of these caches, and the owner promptly deleted all of my logs (he owns all three of them).

If you used inappropriate language in your logs, then the cache owner is within their rights to delete them. But they cannot delete your logs simply because you warn others about safety issues.

If you feel it's important to warn other geocachers about these dangers, then you can contact Groundspeak and ask them to restore your logs. Before doing so, you should read this section of the guidelines.

CR, if they were notes, not found it logs, I disagree. If they were found it logs, then yes, the owner shouldn't have deleted them and weezulguy could appeal to Groundspeak tor estore them. But if they were notes, I don't think they're entitled to have them restored.

Take a look at the quidelines I linked to above:

Quote

Logs that fail to meet stated requirements (such as Found It logs by people who have never found the cache) or logs that conflict with our Terms of Use Agreement may be deleted.

Removing a warning isn't among the listed reasons that justify removing any log--found or unfound.

hzoi, on 02 May 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

In fact, reviewers will often weigh in on other caches with a lot of notes, such as Mingo or the Tunnel of Light A.P.E. cache, and specifically tell people to stop leaving notes and turning a cache page into a forum -- becausee that's what this forum is for.

Correct. A warning log reading, "This cache is located beside a very busy road with no convenient parking." probably could not be legitimately deleted for instigating a debate. A log reading, "Caches located beside very busy roads without convenient parking should be archived." probably could be legitimately deleted.

This post has been edited by CanadianRockies: 03 May 2012 - 06:55 AM

[medoug]

Mr.Yuck, on 02 May 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Interesting. Sounds like a U.S. Route, the predecessor to the Interstate Highway? With cross roads, but few if any traffic lights, and businesses or even homes along it? No thanks.

Yes, it's an U.S. Route. On a piece of the longest road in the United States.

Mr.Yuck, on 02 May 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Be advised your "not finding them so as to not encourage them" policy will have no affect, and probably no locals will even notice the absence of your name in the logs. Especially when 29 easy smileys are involved.

It's the same a voting. If lots of people feel the same and react the same, it will show in the numbers. But I must agree, there will probably always be enough loggers to not discourage the hiders. The hider of this power trail usually puts out some really good hides and gets a lot of favorites awarded to them. Maybe they will notice the lack of favorite points on these Park'n'Grabs and get the message.