Archived because of danger (or not)

[caughtatwork]

Why don't more cachers give adivice in their logs on incorrect difficulty or terrain ratings?

Because (yes, I started a sentence with because), I'm not the cache police and people hate it.
You don't like getting logs that say TFTC.
Others don't like getting logs that say the difficulty should be 3 when they have a 1 or a 2 when they have a 3.
This has little to do with apathy and a lot to do with avoiding angst by subjectively telling people off.

[Richary]

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.

Agreed there. I know in the past I have probably gone past sensible levels before, especially caching solo where nobody would know where to find me. Or even to look for me when I was single, until I don't turn up at work on Monday.

Even though I never felt particularly in danger, one wrong step or accident and it could have been a nasty outcome with a maybe 10m straight fall into a gully with no mobile reception - assuming I was conscious enough to even try to use it.

My girlfriend works Saturdays and every 2nd Sunday, if I am going to do anything hard core alone I might leave a list of where I am planning on going. At least then she can get others to see if the car is parked nearby and know where to start a search.

[pprass]

....Others don't like getting logs that say the difficulty should be 3 when they have a 1 or a 2 when they have a 3.
This has little to do with apathy and a lot to do with avoiding angst by subjectively telling people off.

I beg to differ - I have been "advising" new cachers around the mid north coast and have not had any backlash whatsoever. As a matter of fact I have had very nice replies saying that they appreciate the guidance. However if the advice is in the form as stated above - "...subjectively telling people off." then sure - I would feel the same.
If we have good guidelines that help us play the game we should use them and make sure that they remain useful guidelines.

[caughtatwork]

Difference is the point. You do things one way, I choose to do things a different way.
But we are getting off topic, so I'll leave it there.

[pprass]

....so I'll leave it there.

Me too.

[Rainbow Spirit]

I think we should all rate a cache the minute we arrive on site, (I know I do). I for one don't go by the CO's rating most of the time.

I well remember attempting a 5/5 in the Blue Mountains (Drop Dead Gorgeous). You were supposed to abseil to GZ, but some recent finders had found a way around the drop, and had scrambled down using a hand held rope, via a rock and scree covered slope. So we tried that way with our 'trusty' rope. My caching mate, Satanas 666's statement as we approached a 10m cliff dropoff, while hanging off our rope was, "My life is not worth signing a piece of paper!", and he decided to return to the top. When I gazed over the dropoff, I thought 'what a sensible suggestion!', and followed him back up.

No one is forcing you to attempt a dangerous cache, we all have the choice of saying no, and I for one would never suggest archiving a cache just because of a (hopefully) one off accident. Suggesting to the CO that they might want to upgrade the terrain rating, yes that is perfectly OK, and I have done so at times.

[covert]

I do very little research on a cache before I visit it. I usually only know 2 things about a cache. The Longitude and the Latitude.