[GeoStL] Re: The Insurance Problem: Heads Up Everybody
- From: Glenn <Glenn@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:54:33 -0500
-
Bruce is getting close.
Geocaching.com is a listing site. GC.com will list information for the
people that want it listed. That is all it is.
The cache reviewers (notice i didnt say cache "approver") will review the
caches to see that they meet some minimum gc.com requirements. ie:
That they are spaced OK, The cache contains a logbook, it is not on private
prop without permission, that the person is reasonably close for
maintenance reasons, that it is not buried, and will more than likely not
poise a public safety hazard. Sometimes i have to check permit stuff.
I have never really checked for personal safety issues. I really cant tell
from the cache page if a cache is not safe. There are caches that *I*
consider unsafe. Caches that I would need to ride a bike to, would be
unsafe for me but fine for others. Caches that would be just fine for
Denali would be insane for me. (He likes to climb mountains, I can hardly
climb the stairs). "Red Bluff", "Inspiration Point" and "Lunitic
Fringe" are just fine for me but would perhaps be very difficult for Kono.
Safety issues are a personal risk assessment that the individual geocacher
must make for himself. It is 103 deg out, should I go out and climb a
cliff? If I pass out a the park, can I sue? I have to decide, and then
deal with the consequences of my decisions.
Individual park systems can, and do, regulate where we can go. The State
Parks really want us to stay away from "dangerous" places and I try to
check for that with the topo maps but that is no substitute for the Ranger
actually knowing the cache spot. We had to move "Lunatic Fringe" for that
reason. They felt that they didn't want folks to go to the edge of the
bluff.
Most park systems welcome geocaching and see it as a positive thing for the
parks. There are some that do not want us there. It is much easier to just
say no rather than spend a lot of time dealing with something that really
doesn't affect the large majority of park visitors.
The future of geocaching in some large national land systems is hinging on
insurance and liability issues. They are still being worked on.
there are many other issues involving liability. It could be a very sticky
widget for the parks, the cacher, *cache hider* ! , the cache reviewer and
maybe gc.com.
Lots to think about....
At 02:25 PM 7/26/2004, Bruce S wrote:
> >From: "Susan Ring" <susanmring@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >-
> >>
> >I tried to make the case that geocaching is not an organized activity, that
> >it is open to anyone with a computer. But on the flip side, if we have a
> >group of administrators who approve the caches, that sounds pretty
> >organized.
> >
>
>The approvers are approving what caches can be listed on their site. This
>is no different from a newpaper editor approving what is listed in their new
>paper. Thus if a news paper says go on a walk in a St Peters park does that
>mean that the newspaper is some how liable if a person hurts themself on the
>walk... NOT. - bruce
****************************************
Our WebPage! Http://WWW.GeoStL.com
Mail List Info. //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=geocaching
Mail List FAQ's: //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:
