Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
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."