Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Appropiate Cache site?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Jackson, Maine
    Posts
    109

    Default

    [quote=Trezurs*-R-*Fun] Your cache on top of the mountain,,,one of the first you placed FFJ,,,,should have a warning that there may be partying and "other" activity happening there. That could be a rowdy situation if you arrived unawares. Any cache that is remote should then come with that warning.

    Maybe you didn't read the description on FFJ's cache...but he clearly states that it has been known to be a "partying" place.
    A place where people occasionally have parties is a far cry from a place where people meet for sexual encounters.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    temp
    Posts
    666

    Default

    [quote=Mainelyroses]
    Quote Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
    Your cache on top of the mountain,,,one of the first you placed FFJ,,,,should have a warning that there may be partying and "other" activity happening there. That could be a rowdy situation if you arrived unawares. Any cache that is remote should then come with that warning.

    Maybe you didn't read the description on FFJ's cache...but he clearly states that it has been known to be a "partying" place.
    A place where people occasionally have parties is a far cry from a place where people meet for sexual encounters.
    I clearly read it,,,but it doesn't have an "Attribute" associated with it. Where in the description does it say its not "kid friendly." That is my point, we're adults and everyplace we go we should understand that we may encounter something we may not feel comfortable with. The seperation you suggest; "...partying being a far cry from sexual encounters"....LOL..LOL..LOL.

    If you think I''m picking on that cache, your wrong. You could say the same for all my caches. The point I'm making is that even going to Wal-Mart, you have to be aware of your surroundings. But a Wal-mart lamp post cache would not need an "Attribute" saying its not kid friendly because there have been abductions in the past.

    Cache On!!!!

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Unity, Maine
    Posts
    3,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
    Should there be a warning for the lightpost micro at the Wal-Mart parking lot saying its not kid safe. After all there have been several abductions. I agree that I don't want to see the "activity" that is alledged to have happened at the Fitz cache but placing a "attribute" to warn others of such behavior...hmmm. Your cache on top of the mountain,,,one of the first you placed FFJ,,,,should have a warning that there may be partying and "other" activity happening there. That could be a rowdy situation if you arrived unawares. Any cache that is remote should then come with that warning.
    It should be implied that anytime someone ventures into areas unknown that they should expect the unexpected. Using the general rules of, "Never put yourself in a dangerous situation." and "Trust your instincts." should keep you out of most trouble. Putting that kind of information in the cache description should not be necessary.


    I guess the difference for me is that I have yet to see a single person who has visited the Thrill Cache (much less any of my other caches) mention that they were uncomfortable, that there were people there doing questionable things (i.e. drinking, drugging, cruising, etc.) versus this cache where many, many cachers have mentioned seeing this questionable activity.

    To me it comes down to a frequency issue in these cases -- if the problems reported at the Fitz cache were rare then I would say an attribute or even mentioning it in the description would not be necessary, but when nearly every single cacher (or it seems as though every other cacher) has mentioned folks cruising the woods and following them into the woods then I would say it may be indicative of a problem and not just a cacher who is imaginging things or making a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

    As Rose mentioned I did mention in the Thrill cache description (and I know you're only using this as a possible example and not that you have a problem with this cache . . . especially since I actually got the coords right on this one!) that it is possible that folks may be up on the mountain partying -- although in fact I have yet to be up there and see any folks partying, drugging, drinking, cruising, etc. . . . and I will say I have met many folks up there who have hiked up the hill, rode their ATV there, driven up in their pick-up, etc. I added that tag-line just in case folks happen to be doing a cache on a Friday or Saturday evening and just in case there happens to be a party going on. Again, I have yet to see a log mentioning any bad encounters or experiences.

    Again, to me it boils down to the frequency of the problem. If say the fictional "Lover's Getaway Spot" has a cache placed at it and cachers often report interrupting young lovers in passionate acts then I would say that a word of warning (maybe even an attribute) might be necessary . . . at the very least I (as a responsible cache hider/owner) would want to post a word of warning since many folks have young children and many folks don't really want to see that type of thing) . . . and if I felt the problem was serious enough I would consider archiving that cache. If, on the otherhand, LGS cache was more hype than reality and/or there were no or an infrequent reports of questionable activity I might not feel compelled to type up some words of warning (of course the definition of "infrequent" is subjective but I would base it on the time the cache is at a site and the number of cachers who have found/looked for the cache).

    I do agree with you on one point however -- any cache can be dangerous in the right -- or perhaps I should say wrong -- situation depending on the time of day, location, etc. It is a matter of balancing that risk against one's skills, knowledge, etc. As an example . . . choosing to not do Hole in the Wall at 11 at night in the pitch black after it has rained all evening is probably a good decision. Even simple caches can turn bad . . . i.e. grabbing a dalmatian alongside busy Rt. 1 could prove deadly if a child were to excitedly run into the road to be the first in the group to find the cache (although one would hope that most normal cachers -- OK, maybe a bad word choice with the word "normal") -- would realize the inherent danger of the traffic without being told since it should be pretty obvious (although I have done caches where I have been warned about the traffic . . . and I have at one cache even warned folks to be careful where they park due to the traffic).

    OK, enough rambling . . . I'm not sure if I'm even making sense anymore.
    "Courage is not the absence of fear, but the realization that there is something more important than fear."

    "Death is only one of many ways to die."

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    temp
    Posts
    666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefighterjake
    .... To me it comes down to a frequency issue in these cases -- if the problems reported at the Fitz cache were rare then I would say an attribute or even mentioning it in the description would not be necessary, but when nearly every single cacher (or it seems as though every other cacher) has mentioned folks cruising the woods and following them into the woods then I would say it may be indicative of a problem and not just a cacher who is imaginging things or making a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

    I've read the logs for the Fitz cache and while it doesn't sound like its a place I want to be (...thats just wrong in my book) I don't see this "frequency" issue. There are easily as many "good" remarks as there are "neutral" and "bad" remarks. I've read the cache description for the first time and someone even included a "bookmark" suggesting this cache as a place to visit. The attributes say that its not available 24/7 but it does say its kid friendly. Maybe so during the day light hours?

    My question is, what "attribute" or disclaimer should be associated with the cache that would tell people that they are in MORE danger here than any other rest area in the United States?? What danger are they in?? Has anybody been accosted? Is what the "bad" people are doing against the law?

    My wife will NOT stop at any rest area on her way to visit family in Presque Isle unless I'm with her. The implied danger of these areas are universal, why is this one to be treated any differently than every other rest area?? I've heard the what ifs; maybe a young child is with them or what not. I guess as a parent, if I pulled up and saw this activity I would put my childs safety and consideration first and simply leave. I wouldn't continue on to the cache. On the flip side of the coin, I've had to explain to my 4 year old while shopping in Augusta why a man was wearing a dress. There are no signs along my way into Augusta saying that my children may see questionable "things." These things happen and while I don't wish to be part of these alternate lifestyles how can I be assured they will never "see" them. Heck, I don't want to see them. Are we not responsible for ourselves anymore? Just because someone placed a cache somewhere does it mean that we should throw all our "street sense" out the window and assume things will go perfectly. What if someone pulled into your "Thrill cache" and the people partying were rowdy and decided to fight. Even if it was only one time in 25 years, because of it being infrequent it isn't just as dangerous to the individual at that moment? I remember your cache description saying this is a party place but did you say be careful?? Shouldn't a cacher be when entering this area? It was implied when you said a party area and it should be implied when someone says rest area.

    The frequency means what in reference to the Fitz Cache?? That a cachers chance of being grossed out are increased, big deal. So then it becomes the cache owners fault for not protecting cachers from being "grossed out." While I don't condone, partake or even want to hear of the "questionable" activity that may be happening there, why should this cache be treated any differently than any other cache?

    Cache On!!!

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Topsham
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Okay I was the one that started this thread and by no means did I mean it to start arguments over what sexual preference some one is. I wanted to hear the opinions of other cachers about the cache. That is all.....

    Rik - I apologize..I didn't realize this thread would turn into what it has.

    Team Teebow 2
    I said WHAT!!! You just took me the wrong way......

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Auburn, Maine
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
    My question is, what "attribute" or disclaimer should be associated with the cache that would tell people that they are in MORE danger here than any other rest area in the United States?? What danger are they in?? Has anybody been accosted? Is what the "bad" people are doing against the law?
    You aren't in any danger here, but you & your kids might have to see activities, and it does seem to happen daily.
    ~*There's Tupperware in thum thar hills!*~

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Litchfield, Maine
    Posts
    3,589

    Default

    Sorry about closing the thread but I think it has gotten off topic from what it was originally intended. No fault of anyone in particular. I just do not want it getting to the point that it is a hindrance.
    Blazing Troll

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •