West Bend. The png capital of the world i think.

[Northwoods Tom]

Nicely said zuma.

[BeccaDay]

I’m really not sure that what was done last night to the cacher that has been alluded to but not named was really the best way to handle things. I’m pretty sure I’d be bawling like a baby if someone so publicly humiliated me. While I can understand the frustration of the cachers who worry about these things, was this really the best way to handle the situation?

Not all who wander are lost. -J.R.R. Tolkien

[gotta run]

@beccaday wrote:

I’m really not sure that what was done last night to the cacher that has been alluded to but not named was really the best way to handle things. I’m pretty sure I’d be bawling like a baby if someone so publicly humiliated me. While I can understand the frustration of the cachers who worry about these things, was this really the best way to handle the situation?

What? 😕

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Matter23]

In my opinion geocaching should be what *you make of it. Wether if you want to make it about the numbers, make it about the challenge, quality, the flora and fona, or all of the above. Everyone has there goals and personal achievements in their game.
I am not a fan of PnG’s but I will do them from time to time. And they are plenty in West Bend. Some are absurdly easy and obvious to find in the area. Which it is, what it is.

PnG hiders do need to take responsibility for their cache from the published listing to cache maintenance. They should mark the appropriate attribute for PnG and the like so cachers can exclude and include them in their PQ’s. Alot of the PnG’s in West Bend don’t have this. Owners also need to maintain all of their caches per the cache ownership guidelines stated on gc.com.
PnG finders need to report caches that are missing or needs maintenance. I have heard to many cachers in the area going for PnG’s and they dont even bother logging there cache find status or condition of the cache.

Cache Reviewers (yes I am talking to the big dawgs) I do understand that roadways are for public use. But really? Approving a cache that cars go by exceeding 65mph is safe? The simple answer would be “dont do them.” But really you are approving a cache that is putting people and traffic in harms way. In my opinion they shouldnt be approved and owners of the cache should be told to move them or not place in that area. It isnt safe. There are quality signage on back roads and industrial park signs. As I was told by WGA board members, you have the final word.

The future of caching and types of cache quality/types depend on all of us as a community and as a group. I know PnG is a hot button issue for some. And I think a debate about the future of caching depends on us and where we want to see it go in the future. My vote is for quality, ingenuity, challenge, and uniqueness of geocaching even if it is a PnG or not, if you hide it they will come.

Please mark attributes on your page so I dont go to Cty Hwy G and almost be a part of person vs. Semi accident.

My $0.02

[Todd300]

Very well said, Matter23.

[-cheeto-]

Groundspeak volunteer reviewers don’t “rule” on the safety or risk of a cache placement. There are many caches placed that a person could get injured or killed while hunting.

You don’t have to hunt for a cache.

I drive by many I don’t care to find daily.

[Matter23]

Groundspeak volunteer reviewers don’t “rule” on the safety or risk of a cache placement.

I never said “rule”. I said they have the final say. I have had cache descriptions altered and changed by GS reviewers (some with and some without my knowledge.) Sometimes they offer advice or give tips for better placement if legal. They also would research the placement area and make sure the cache hide follows the guidelines, true.

But as a cacher, yes, you control your own safety. If you were to go out on a boat and find a cache on an island, you take full responsibility of yourself and possible crew members. So if you forgot lifejackets you have no one to blame but yourself. You are liable.
On the otherhand if you are hiking on the side of a county highway with your nose in your gps and a car loses control and hits you granted, you are responsible for being there. But the driver of the car is liable for the accident and injuries you may have if you were involved. So my question is why let cachers be in a known dangerous area without it being posted on the cache page?
Once again, in my opinion, I would put a disclaimer on the cache page. Maybe even make the difficulty higher if placing on a highway, just due to the difficulty of parking and grabbing. They have “possible danger” as an attribute (skull and crossbones).
Would you hunt a cache in a snake pit? I know some would. The “natural selection rule” still applies in GC and there isnt a attribute. Maybe then I can get some ftf’s…lol!

Please use your common sense for hiding, finding, and approving these risky placed PnG’s. Attributes and cache descriptions make a world of difference when hiding and hunting. Also benefits cachers when making PQ’s or weeding out in GSAK.

[zuma]

@-cheeto- wrote:

Groundspeak volunteer reviewers don’t “rule” on the safety or risk of a cache placement. There are many caches placed that a person could get injured or killed while hunting.

You don’t have to hunt for a cache.

I drive by many I don’t care to find daily.

Exactly. Not every cache is for everybody. Get the ones that suit you and dont waste time complaining about the ones that do not suit you.

z

[rcflyer2242]

Amen to that

[Author]

Posts