Archived because of danger (or not)

[Richary]

I will start by saying I have thought long and hard about posting this thread because of the emotion still running. Most people by now will be aware that Mike from thewhitedoggang in SA suffered a very nasty and life threatening fall while attempting a cache last Saturday. If not see this thread.

http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... =8&t=15119

The cache in question http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... dae01fec6f has been in place since 2003, and in fact it was my 7th ever find. There have been requests for the owner to update the terrain rating, though when I did it 7 years ago I don't recall it being that extreme, but then again as it was my 7th cache I wouldn't have had the experience to suggest a higher rating. And of course local conditions may well have changed since then. Rethinking it now from what I recall I would suggest terrain 3.5 maybe.

Since the accident there has been one request on the cache page to up the terrain, and another saying it should be archived because of the danger. That's the one I disagree with. Why - because 70 people have logged finds, with 25 DNFs either because they decided it was too hard, or for some other reason.

To move the debate away from the specific cache in question, this is actually a general post and the above is background. Should a cache placement be archived because someone has tried and suffered a serious accident or at worse death (which I am sure must have happened somewhere around the world by now)? Does one person having a life threatening fall make the cache bad given that 70 other finds have been logged without injury?

To pre-empt what will come up - yes we all make our own decisions when caching. Can I get to it, and can I get back safely? It is ultimately the finders choice as to whether to try, and I have walked away from a few without trying. In this particular instance though I don't think there was any real indication that it wasn't all OK, and might simply have been bad luck or a misstep in the wrong place. And of course wishing Mike and all his family the best for a speedy recovery.

[MtnLioness]

I agree, I don't think it needs archiving HOWEVER, after reading a fair few of the logs from the past and seeing some of the lightly scary pics, I agree that the terrain defiantly does need to be readjusted and more warnings and advise given on the cache page.

To me, the call for archiving looks to be an emotional one as it would be for any cache that had caused an incident like this or worse but I don't feel it is a necessary one.

[Captain Terror]

I look at it from the time recently when there were a few of us went caching in Springbrook National Park and GhostGums tripped on a rock in a creekbed while we were on the 17km walk and he had to be airlifted out with a broken ankle.

It is not the cache that causes injury really is it? More the geocacher through fault of his own, environment or whatever that causes the injury.

I know it says somewhere on the GC site that geocachers participate at their own risk. I understand there is a resbonsibility of the cache owner that the cache not be the cause of injury, or the want to find a geocache cause injury, but I don't think a geocache should be archived because of an injury. Provided there is adequate warnings or notes on the cache page about any dangers, then I don't think the ownice is on the hider anymore (or not as extensively).

Should geocaches hidden in areas where the finder gets cut up by lantana, grazed on a rock, bitten by leeches, covered in spiderwebs be archived?

Back to my experience, should the National Park be closed because a geocacher hurt himself there? After all the geocache was on the existing trail, so it would be QPWS responsible. After all, what if GhostGums was just a bushwalker? He could have broken his ankle without a GPS in hand.

If we go searching for a 3.5, 4, 5 Terrain cache, we know the risks involved, that's why they have a star rating. It needs to be taken into consideration when planning the attack.

I think it is a user defined sport and should stay like that. There are many caches on cliffs, provided it wasn't the cache that pushed him off the cliff, it deserves to stay.

That's how I see it anyways.

[Trigg-A-Nomics]

I think there's a fair gap between a 2.5 and a 3.5 terrain rating. 2.5 says "This will be hard. I might get wet or muddy.", whereas a 3.5 says "This could be dangerous. I could get hurt." The terrain rating must take into account both the cache location itself and the journey required to get to GZ.

On the cache in question there are numerous logs like "Grabbed a tree and it gave way", "Thought I was going to die", "Discovered that you can slide on your butt over the edge of a cliff", "Terrain varied between 2.5 and 4.5" and "Made a vertical scramble to GZ". These are not the logs of a 2.5 terrain cache.

I don't think a cache should be archived because someone injures themselves trying to reach it.

But the question should be asked: should a cache be archived when persisent requests to increase the terrain rating are ignored?

[Diadem]

I've cached next to cliffs, and even slid down a very steep slope once (very lucky I didn't injure myself). For me it's a fact of life that no matter what we do we can get injured. If we were to avoid all activities which could hurt us we wouldn't get out of bed (or get in it for that matter - how many people die in bed?). I tried a cache recently that involved climbing a tree - I got part the way up and decided it wasn't for me without safety ropes and backed down. I'll do it later with said ropes.

I add my voice to those that say "don't archive". People should/need to assess the risks (based in part on warnings) for themselves and decide their actions.

[Happy Chappies]

Mrs Happy Chappy and I had a discussion about this one last night - Our gut feeling is always instinctively "ooh, someone shouldn't place a cache where risk of injury is so high and so serious"... But then, on reflection, it is up to the individual and as long as the terrain rating and appropriate cautions are there, then I have no problem with such caches. Heck - think of all those scuba and rockclimbing caches... It's up to us to check for safety and suitability, even if the terrain rating is low (things may have changed, conditions may be different, experience expectations differ...)

And someone could get seriously hurt near any cache. If someone got hit by a car crossing the road to do an urban micro, would we archive it? If someone got mugged in an alley doing one of the Melbourne's lanes caches, would we archive it?

[Team Wibble]

I agree that archiving would be an emotional response.

I haven't found the cache in question, but am familiar with the terrain and even several years ago noticed that the terrain rating on this cache was severely understated (and have not attempted it due to the terrain and the logs). One point that Zytheran consistently raises when discussing determination of terrain ratings is the issue of consistency. A terrain rating should be consistent with other caches in the region so that cachers have a reasonable expectation of what they will be confronted with. 2.5 stars terrain is grossly inconsistent with other caches of this sort of terrain in South Australia. 2.5 star terrain to me means a shortish hike, perhaps a tiny bit of a scramble up an embankment. No cliffs or slippery terrain which might result in a nasty fall.

The cache in question is an old one, and therefore lacks a lot of the attributes and warnings that are usual for caches nowadays. On the weekend we were discussing with Zytheran the issue of how to get the terrain raised, or appropriate warnings in place. At that time I think we both assumed that the cache owner was no longer active, given the age of the cache, but having a look at the website he has been caching within the last week or so, but now seems to live in the ACT.
Has anyone contacted him directly? Obviously he would be aware of what has happened through the recent logs on the cache page, but the terrain rating remains at 2.5.

Obviously, ultimately, it comes down to an individual's assessment of their abilities when deciding to attempt a cache. However, lower terrain ratings can give people a false sense of security, especially if the dangers aren't obvious (I am led to believe that the height of the cliff isn't completely apparent near GZ when you are there). I'm not saying Mike's awful accident wouldn't have occurred if the terrain rating was different, as sometimes simple plain bad luck can result in catastrophic injuries. But being armed with as much information as possible about the terrain that you are about to enter can only assist people and hopefully not result in a repeat of what Mike and his family are now going through.

[Richary]

I think people are agreeing with my thoughts. It was so long ago I found the thing I can't really remember what the terrain rating was back then, but then as it was so early in my caching days (find #7) that I wouldn't have been in a position to judge if it was fair at the time.

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

[Yurt]

There's a cache in the north of Sydney that is not that hard to get to but if you approach it the 'wrong' way you might have to slide down something like a cliff. The terrain rating was about 3 but a number of people logging complained that it was dangerous, because they'd taken a different approach, so the cache owner upped it to a terrain 5, which is over the top in my opinion but at least it prepares everyone for the worst.

When I placed a cache in similar terrain back in May I saw it was another one you could find yourself trying to get down cliffs to get to it so I rated it a 4 but also noted there was an easy way down. But we all know how many people actually read all the cache notes.

When in doubt ramp up the terrain rating. More adventurous souls will pooh-pooh it in their logs but that's okay. It will forewarn those who may have problems with such a terrain.

[Trigg-A-Nomics]

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 was going to add the new "Dangerous Area" skull and crossbones attribute to my 4 star terrain cache but I think "Difficult climbing" is probably sufficient given that it's a tree in a sports ground.

[Zalgariath]

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?

I went and had a peek at one of Sydney's most famous and spectacular caches "The Final Cut" the other week (2/4.5) got to GZ (alone) took 20 steps and went "Nope", I'll come back with mates on this one. It was my first experience above 4 star terrain (and even on of those caches "Climbing the Pipes" I was perhaps a touch fool hardy doing alone). As a fit 20 something male with some climbing/abseiling experience I dont believe (well once Im fit from this shoulder recon the other week!) there are many caches beyond my ability as yet... (bar scuba... but I could learn ) but I also accept this will not always be the case, and anything 3.5T and up, needs careful consideration, and most likely are not to be attempted alone. We all have to know our limits, and more importantly, know when to back down (perhaps the hardest thing for a fit 20 something male!)

To pull out an old retort from when I go canyoning... you are 100's of times more likely to be injured DRIVING to the cache/canyon then you are pursuing the hobby you are adequately prepared and trained for. People get hurt in unfortunate accidents doing everything from skydiving to grocery shopping, that's life. You can bubble wrap yourself if you want, but the Risk-Reward paradigm would tend to favour you being a rather boring individual.

Manage Risk, Know Your Limits, Reap the Benefits

[PacketStorm4]

I agree it shouldn't be archived,
There was once a cache in Ballarat that Indiana08 and i attempted,
"Who Dares Wins"
It said that if your not careful you may end up in the middle of the midland highway.
It was under a overpass on a very steep concrete slope.
It was a fun cache that sadly wasn't there when we looked for it.
Same can be said for another cache that is at the top of a pine tree ~30 meters from the ground.

If i was climbing that tree without a GPS and hurt myself whats the difference?

Geocaching is a family fun sport.
You need to use your head to assess whether you are capable of getting the cache, otherwise come back with someone that will help you.




(note: on both occasions we knew what to expect and had ropes and equipment to deal with these obstacles.)

[calumphing_four]

No it shouldn't be archived.
I'd rather see one over rate a terrain than under-rate it.
Zytheran adds a mix of consequence to his ratings. So you know if you fall from a 5-star you die, or do some major damage if 4-star. But even then some will complain. Should climbing up a ladder which isn't that hard, but if you do fall you'll do major damage be rated high? - or why should walking along a railway track have a higher terrain when it goes over a 10m gully than when it is on solid ground?
What would be useful is for owners to do some risk assessment on their cache which is a three step process:
1. Identify the Risk
2. Risk Assessment - the following chart is useful:

3. Risk Control
i.e add appropriate warnings and attributes, or provide details to eliminate/reduce the risk if their cache is rated medium, high or critical - e.g mentioning that a cache is at the base of a cliff face can reduce the consequence and the likelihood (as there is no need to climb up it); or mentioning climbing equipment and appropriate usage is required would reduce the likelihood of one falling (but doesn't reduce the consquence).

Just my 2c

Cheers

[nibbler]

My hubby did this one with a 10 year old in tow. Definitely a challenge BUT doesnot require archiving IMHO
I think that this was just really an unfortunate accident ....from all I have read about Mike he is an experienced geocacher and it was just a misstep. There are risks in all aspects of life but we dont necessarily reflect on all aspects as we go about living.
I am wishing mike a speedy and full recovery as many of the geocaching community do as well .

[Philipp]

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.

However it's your responsibility to be safe as a cacher. Accidents can happen and I hope Mike will recover in no time & he and his family is supported by the community but I don't think he will blame anyone for this accident.

cheers
Philipp

P.S.: feel free to copy with reference:

The great outdoors isn't the place from the TV-commercials with blue skies and fleecy clouds.There are no fresh towels or machines with all-in-one shampoo in the wild. It is as far as possible away from our sterile world with their safety belts, guardrails, seat cushions and "please wash your hands now" signs. This is how it should be and this is why we love it. Geocaching is in the truest sense of the word inspired by the unforeseen and inhospitable. If the enemy is the unknown, a perfect performance is not a luxury but a necessity. With geocaching, mountaineering and other outdoor activities, you have to face real dangers. Just because your equipment can cope with everything, that does not mean you can too. Have great respect for the environment in which you find yourself. Be prepared for everything!