[GeoStL] Re: logging question

-
It is not so much that the listing process is lax  it is more of a problem 
that people don't want to tell us the middle waypoints in the 1st place and 
when folks do, they are not always real descriptive.   "...here is the list 
of coords, thanks" .  Looking at the map, it is tough to tell that a jungle 
jim, cemetery or anything else is there.  The wpts are generally checked to 
see if they are at the airport, on train tracks, or the hiway and too close 
to wpts of other caches (if we even know them). If the cache has been there 
a while the wpts were probably not looked at at all.  The checking and 
listing process is obviously not perfect and some in the GC.com forums 
would say  that is totally unnecessary to check them at all.  The other 
geocaching sites do not check for such things.     and yes, some cache 
reviewers look at things a little harder or have differing opinions and pet 
peeves on what should/should not be allowed.

Safety is an issue that I cant assess from reading a cache page and not an 
overriding factor for not listing a cache.  I would hope that the cache 
hider that is actually at the site would pick something that is family 
friendly and not dangerous but if the cache page is rated 4 or 5 for 
difficulty I think that it is the personal responsibility of the cache 
finder to know their own limits and choose to hunt or not hunt 
accordingly.   Everybody has differing levels of relative safety.   What 
seems like a nice bushwack walk in the park at silvermines would be totally 
unsafe for Purple with a baby buggy. Likewise, any thought of me following 
Denali up the side of cliff face would be plain foolish (but plenty 
amusing!) .   "Safety"  is a tough thing to "regulate" .

I also believe if ya cant get to the cache, you didn't get to the cache.

glenn


At 02:47 PM 6/29/2004, Michael Tollefson wrote:

>-
>I some areas around the country the approval of caches seems very lax.
>I've found multi-waypoints on playground equipment.  I've found caches
>in cemeteries marked private.  Things like that.  Makes you wonder
>sometimes.
>
>Mike (tollybrew)
>
>--- Dru C Reeves <drur@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > -
> > Who approved a cache that was hidden in the superstructure of a
> > bridge?
> > Sounds a little on the dangerous side to me. Log it....
> >

 ****************************************************************************
 Our WebPage!  Http://WWW.GeoStL.com  
 Mail List Info. http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=geocaching
 Mail List FAQ's: http://www.freelists.org/help/questions.html 
 ****************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list:
 send an email to geocaching-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the 
Subject field

Other related posts: