Archived because of danger (or not)

[Richary]

I do have contact details for the CO so I will drop him a line.

Thanks Richary! Let us know how you get on. It would be helpful to have both the terrain and the attributes updated.

I did get a response, that he has been out of caching for a while and only just got back into it. He agrees and has upped the terrain to 3.5 which I think is probably fair for this one. He has also added warnings to the description and mentioned it may be archived in the future but only after he is able to talk to Mike about how he feels.

[Big Matt and Shell]

I'm for not archiving the listing.

People need to be responsible for themselves, just because the listing shows a 2 doesn't mean you should wander in blindly and expect it to be all safe. Like many have said this cache was completed by many, with children in tow. To me it looks like a horrible accident but I'm sure that each person who has visited the site has realised this had an element of danger and I'm sure it is part of the appeal.

I've DNF'd a cache in NSW because I wasn't prepared to take the risk of getting to the GZ. I walked a long distance with a group of experienced walkers and got to within a distance i wouldn't have been able to place another cache but pulled out. It looks like people have done the same here, they have realised it it beyond their skill level but they haven't asked for it to be archived.

As a cache owner, I would feel very sorry for the cacher that was hurt doing my cache but that is what we do. We go caching to see different places and have different experiences, otherwise we would just go to the states and only do LPC's

On a different note,

I agree with the consensus here. Archiving is not the answer, but if the owner refuses to up the terrain, maybe a Reviewer could be approached?

Working on it ... if GS approves me as a third OZ-backup/cleanup reviewer, I am happy to look after cache descriptions which don't reflect the life-threatening nature of some caches.

If you started changing my caches I would get very upset, it is not your place to make changes to my listing. If this is going to be your approach to moderating in Australia, Thanks but no thanks. You have to remember what it dangerous to you might not be to the next person.

[Philipp]

If you started changing my caches I would get very upset, it is not your place to make changes to my listing. If this is going to be your approach to moderating in Australia, Thanks but no thanks. You have to remember what it dangerous to you might not be to the next person.

As a reviewer I have never changed and I won't change a cache listing, difficulty rating or attributes of active owners. I would only contact these owners and suggest to do some changes.

For clearly abandoned I would suggest to add attributes but that's something up to the community to decide what's best. A reviewer is there to help and keep the database clean - not to tell you how to play the game But since no decision has been made if I'll ever get the brick back, that's just theory.

sorry for derailing the thread
Cheers
Philipp

[Damo.]

My brother's partner got quite badly injured a few years back while we were doing a terrain 3 cache. She badly twisted/dislocated her knee and did some tendon damage.

My brother and I were off looking for the cache. She somehow did the injury while just waiting for us at the car!

[Zalgariath]

I've dislocated a shoulder and badly hurt myself on a fairly rated T1.5 cache. I was walking too fast along a bush track and tripped on a fallen branch. Surgery was 2 weeks ago, partial shoulder reconstruction, all looking good now Injuries can happen anywhere, at any cache. Good to hear the owner upped the terrain rating, future finders take care, and enjoy!

[grahamf72]

I'm not familiar with the cache in question or the terrain in question, but unless the area is prohibited entry it shouldn't be archived.

Even on the simplest of caches, accidents can happen. Sometimes they are through poor preparation, but sometimes from a moment of inattention or just bad luck. From the moment you are born, you start facing risks in the world, and not all can be planned away. You can choose to never leave your front door to have a relatively safe lifestyle, but as the BCF ads say "That's not living". I choose to go outside and do things (including caching) because I want to do things with my life. I accept that with some things I do if I make a mistake I could get hurt or killed. Obviously I choose what I do and how I do it to reduce that risk, but it never goes away completely.

As to the comments about the terrain rating, I agree that under-rating isn't good, but over-rating can be just as bad. If someone's experience with T4+ caches is that they have all been fairly easy, and then they get hit with one that is a challenge it can lead to a false sense of security. Is it a T4 because it is strenuous but otherwise safe, or is it relatively easy but a high chance of injury if you goof? Should a short walk along a graded path with a cliff just off the path, be given the same rating as a 10k hike with 1000m altitude change over a rough track? Should a drive-by on a 4WD-only track get T5 because "special equipment is required"?

Perhaps a single terrain rating isn't sufficient. Most bushwalking clubs rate the hikes on multiple aspects such as hike length, gradient change, track quality & special skills.

Terracaching uses a system where you set the hike length, altitude change, and the percentages of the walk that is off-trail, moderately overgrown and heavily overgrown, along with a physical challenge rating.

Since I doubt GC.com are going to change the T system any time soon (if ever), then I think it would be responsible for cache owners to put details in the cache page of what the cacher might find, eg "Cache is a short easy hike over a well maintained walking track, but there is a 50m cliff only a few feet away from the track, so exercise caution especially with children". Of course this relies on cachers actually reading the cache page which is another issue entirely.

[Trail06]

I am in no doubt this cache should be archived. I have attempted many caches that are more difficult than this cache, but this is not the issue here. This cache is located near a cliff and while I am thankful the cache page has been updated, a warning *** Do not attempt this cache alone - in spring time, the grasses can be slippery. is hardly a strong warning. It sounds like you are walking on a slippery lawn!

Where does the burden of responsibility begin and end for owners of caches and the administrators of geocaching.com. I believe the adminstrators have a governance role to manage risk for the sport and the risks are not adequately flagged in respect to this cache.

[Richary]

I must respectfully disagree. The warning will make sense when you get near GZ and see a steep slope covered in slippery grass. The primary responsibility as with everything relies on you. You get to the point, it is your choice whether to proceed or not. As has been mentioned - do you have the physical capabilities to do the cache and return safely, or do you need to evaluate the situation and either give up, or return better prepared and with friends? I've bailed before.

In this case it sounds like it was a simple misstep that led to the accident, rather than the grass. But unless one of the other people present chooses to post details of exactly what happened, it is just conjecture.

GC take no responsibility, it's one of the disclaimers you agree to when you join the site. So the best you could probably achieve is to email one of the local reviewers with your concerns and see if they are willing to suggest to the cache owner that they provide more detail or update the attributes.

The cache owner one is different, and as a hider I try to indicate if there is anything that will be a problem when searching for the cache. However this is a lot less common on older caches. I guess the "nanny-state" mentality wasn't as entrenched than it is these days.

You make a choice when you go out on a hunt. Can I do this safely - and the fact that 70 previous finders (and I am one of them) have logged it succesfully would suggest that it can be done safely and also suggests this is just an unfortunate accident rather than an experienced cacher being lulled into a false sense of security by a low terrain rating or poor description.

[Zytheran]

I am in no doubt this cache should be archived. I have attempted many caches that are more difficult than this cache, but this is not the issue here. This cache is located near a cliff and while I am thankful the cache page has been updated, a warning *** Do not attempt this cache alone - in spring time, the grasses can be slippery. is hardly a strong warning. It sounds like you are walking on a slippery lawn!

Where does the burden of responsibility begin and end for owners of caches and the administrators of geocaching.com. I believe the adminstrators have a governance role to manage risk for the sport and the risks are not adequately flagged in respect to this cache.

The responsibility begin and ends with the finder IMHO.
Here's the reason, if there was *any* amount of responsibility with Groundspeak then the issue of liability insurance would crop up. I have seen sports (e.g caving) nearly destroyed by this issue. Furthermore Geocaches are in public places that are uncontrolled. By their very nature public places should be viewed as the responsibility of the public, even if it is through officials of some sort. Remember, public servants work for *us*. It is simply too difficult to control access unless you want to fence everything off, put in behavior controlling laws and the whole legal framework for controlling such places. I'm sure that no-one, let alone the people involved in Geocaching, want to promote any more restrictions of behavior in public places.
People complain about $30 Groundspeak membership, OK what about a few hundred dollars to cover the liability insurance, if it was even possible to get it? Which it most likely isn't so the whole sport would become banned. The issue of insurance at minor events is starting to crop up. I'd like to suggest we really don't want this, it's a can of worms that adds nothing to the enjoyment, or safety of the sport/hobby.

As for having the "administrators" have any more responsibility, think about the reviewing process? Do we want reviewers accountable for what they review? Do you really think that would work? Think of the legality, the costs, the insurance etc. What about training the reviewers, what about training the hiders? Do we really want to go down that path?

At the end of the day the biggest risk to Geocachers is still the driving to the geocaches, not the hunt. When you look at the total number of hides and the total number of finds the injury rate for geocaching is very, very low.
There will be accidents where human judgment has failed and that is part of being human. We can act in a reasonably way, we can hide caches in a reasonable way and this is the correct level for setting this bar, reasonableness.
We are not incredibly insightful, we can't evaluate everything that may go wrong with something as complex as geocaching, in all it's forms and ways and locations. We can't predict the future very well. Because, at the end of the day, we are human and we are far, far from perfect and our expectations of human behavior should always take this into account.
The day we set this bar higher than that, is the day we bring upon ourselves all of the restrictions of a stifling nanny state where hobbies like Geocaching are simply placed in the too hard to control basket and banned. (In more places than they already are..)

@Trail06 As for the information for Mines of Moria, the attributes now show there are cliffs nearby and it is a dangerous area . It is reasonable to believe finders look at these and understand what they mean as they are visible on the cache page. If you believe the risks are not adequately flagged then please suggest some improvements that can be applied to this and all other caches that are similiar?

[Mr Router]

If you started changing my caches I would get very upset, it is not your place to make changes to my listing. If this is going to be your approach to moderating in Australia, Thanks but no thanks. You have to remember what it dangerous to you might not be to the next person.

As a reviewer I have never changed and I won't change a cache listing, difficulty rating or attributes of active owners. I would only contact these owners and suggest to do some changes.

For clearly abandoned I would suggest to add attributes but that's something up to the community to decide what's best. A reviewer is there to help and keep the database clean - not to tell you how to play the game But since no decision has been made if I'll ever get the brick back, that's just theory.

sorry for derailing the thread
Cheers
Philipp

big Mat has said it all ! but one thing you would make for is "As a reviewer I have never changed and I won't change a cache listing" unlike another who shall remain nameless who thinks he can "change" what ever he wants !

[pprass]

Why don't more cachers give adivice in their logs on incorrect difficulty or terrain ratings? Is it laziness or the "well I did it with incorrect ratings and so hang it - the next person will have to work it out as well" syndrome?

Apathy is hurting this game.

ps - No archiving. If we go the archiving route we will be removing hundreds of caches and turn this game into a search for eclipse tins in suburban parks - and watch out for those long spikey leaves that can poke your eye!

[o'cholio]

If caches are going to be archived or not published in the first place because of possible dangers, then you need to get rid of anything not on flat ground, anything next to a road and anything that involves walking over bumps or through long grass. I'm in full agreement with Zytheran here; if the only caches in existence are all 1/1s, I'm outta here!

You can't just archive all "dangerous" caches, as perception of danger is all relative and highly subjective. The cache at Mt Chambers is a classic example. IMO, Mines of Moria isn't all that difficult a cache. But accidents can and do happen. Even on 1/1s. I once got a very nasty sprain on a reasonably easy cache (Collect the Set: Waterfall, near Mannum). The size of the injury is not always proportional to the size of the terrain rating...

Think of the ramifications here and what you are advocating with regards to who takes responsibility for the actions of cachers. If Groundspeak is held to account for injuries incurred while geocaching, I can guarantee the sport will die overnight. Or there'll be no such thing as Basic Members and we'll pay exorbitant fees to use the service. If the various councils, shires, National Parks, etc become accountable, I'll bet my vital organs that it will become banned in all areas, and subsequently die. The responsibility MUST rest with the individual. It's quite simple: if you think it's dangerous and don't like the risk factor, DON'T ATTEMPT IT.

[Richary]

Why don't more cachers give adivice in their logs on incorrect difficulty or terrain ratings? Is it laziness or the "well I did it with incorrect ratings and so hang it - the next person will have to work it out as well" syndrome?

Good point, some of the more experienced cachers including myself do. The problem is that the perceived difficulty (of both D & T) is highly subjective. Yes GC has a tool to guesstimate it, but it can't take into account all the factors. Yes there are written guidelines, again you have to interpret them against the particular environment they are in.

So if I see a cache from a newcomer to the support where I think the D/T is obviously badly wrong, I will either mention it in the note or in a PM explaining why. If it's a more experienced cacher I figure they have just as much knowledge as me on what it should be, and will only comment if it's drastically wrong.

We also need to remember that a lot of older caches such as the one in question never gave information about the terrain or difficulties. Back in 2002 they were much more a "here it is, go find it" type of listing - and if you were lucky with some sort of hint in there.

And also remember that conditions can change over time, what is different in the 8 years since it was placed? Perhaps that was a drought year and the slippery grass just wasn't an issue. Maybe the rocks have got more crumbly. Maybe what used to be a terrain 4 on a different cache now has a walking track 50 metres away so should now be a 2. And while the CO should ideally keep an eye on these things and the logs, it doesn't happen if you are no longer active or have moved out of the area.

I take the ratings on the older caches with a similar view to the way I take the coordinates. Back in 2002 GPS units werent generally as good as they are now, so unless there is something to indicate new coords have been taken I will often expand the search area a bit more on an old unmaintained cache. People then also had less experience with the rating system, and community expectations now have changed as the sport has evolved.

[Trail06]

As usual Zytheran, your points are are all well considered and logical. I have no desire to labour the point in this forum and I am happy to bow to the majority view. My family and I absolutely love geocaching and like you, I would not like to see anything disturb the sport we enjoy and treasure. This horrible accident has served as a reminder to us all that there are risks to our sport and I know that my eyes have been certainly been opened to some of these dangers.

[pprass]

...The problem is that the perceived difficulty (of both D & T) is highly subjective...

Yes - I understand that point very well and as a matter of fact when in a group caching we often argue about say whether the cache we just did should be a 2.5 or a 3.0, but we are always in agreement if it is rated as a 2.0 and it should be a 3.5 or a 4.0!
After a few hundred caches you get a pretty good feel as to what the difference in difficulty is and I am glad that you are using that experience to advise others.
Let's see more of it.