|
Post by ladybugkids on Dec 21, 2008 7:48:28 GMT -9
There have been several threads in the geocaching.com forums about the hazards of hiding caches on or near electrical equipment (transformers, junction boxes, lamp post skirts, etc.) or hiding a cache that looks like electrical equipment (outlets, switches, junction boxes, etc.). This blog posted by a geocacher (Johnnygeo) who is a health and safety consultant for a large utility company in Canada has given me pause to seriously reconsider a few of my hides (none of which are in Anchorage). After reading Johnnygeo's blog, please share your thoughts on the subject of caches and electrical equipment in this thread.
|
|
mtboy
Silver Cacher
Posts: 139
|
Post by mtboy on Dec 21, 2008 23:46:32 GMT -9
I like what this guy has to say. Just ask the grizzly bear that bit the electrical wire in Kincaid a few years back...I have met many of you at various events and am convinced that it is probable that a geocacher might bite a wire in the near future! ;D
I also find lamp post hides dangerous because they want to make me want to beat my head into the aformentioned light pole.
Seriously, there are a lot safer places in alaska to hide caches, like on top of mountains...across iceberg filled lakes, in the middle of homeless camps, swamps, rock walls, frozen waterfalls, bear infested salmon streams, and boulder fields. You can even hide them in makeshift portapottys and drag them into municipal parks if you want to be extra safe!
I can't wait to be back in AK...a few more weeks as a southerner and i am going to be home!
|
|
|
Post by tinman4x on Dec 22, 2008 11:12:23 GMT -9
That is a pretty well thought out blog LBK. Thanks for linking us to it. I know I would have never found it otherwise.
It does bring to mind a few anchorage caches that should probably be examined by the owners. I've found myself looking where I shouldn't be looking and having to reconsider if this is or is not the hide. Most of the caches near electrical equipment that I've questioned myself on ended up being dnf's anyway though so I might have been way off track.
Traveling around and caching in several states I've found more of these hides in GA than anywhere else. Many of those have bare wires exposed ect. I doubt any of them happened to be live wires or I would have been lit up I'm sure but there's no way to know by just looking from a distance. I did find a cache in Iowa that was at the base of one of the huge wind generators. I didn't see anything dangerous about it other than possibly being mistaken for a vandal of terrorist. We drove right up to the base of it but I'm not sure it's mean't to be public. Kind of erie with those huge windmill blades wisking overhead. The tip speed of those things is impressive.
Good reading and something to think about for future cache placements.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Dec 23, 2008 13:12:33 GMT -9
Gee - couldn't agree more with the remarks in this thread so far.
A basic item to remember is that the utility gear 'belongs' to the utility companies, even if it's located within an 'approved' area to play (such as a city park). Thus, under GC.com guidelines, caches on electrical equipment aren't an approved location - as Chugach Electric has already indicated (in the case of some utility box hides out in the Eagle River area) their equipment is off limits.
No matter how benign we 'think' a utility box placement may appear, we're not electricians. They'd never dream of doing a placement on a box because of the 'curiousity' factor - why draw children to a potentially hazardous location where the average person has no clue how to assess whether a hazard exists or not? Best solution is to find hide locations with 'natural hazards' - as mtboy has generously listed, there's plenty of those in Alaska!
|
|
|
Post by knappling on Dec 23, 2008 22:29:22 GMT -9
It was interesting but a bit disturbing to read this article. I have found many caches hidden around utility equipment without thinking about the risk - I don't want to put any on the spot but now I am more informed when I search for caches.
If anyone reading this has found my "War of the Worlds" cache, do you think I should archive it? It is not on a lightpole but close by.
I appreciate any input.
Thanks,
Knappling
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 23, 2008 23:10:09 GMT -9
I have 2 hides that fall into this category. One of them started at the base of a tree in a park in the middle of Soldotna. It was vandalized such that the can and contents were found littered about on the nearby grass and the out-of-state cacher who found it that way placed it under the lamp skirt nearby, thinking that was where it was supposed to be. I left it there since the original spot had been compromised (most likely by some kids). I adjusted the coords and listing to reflect the new location. I probably ought to move it back to the nearby forest. I wasn't a great fan of the lamp skirt hide anyway.
The other one is pretty blatant. It is a gray plastic J-box with a short piece of plastic conduit sticking out the bottom and a standard weather-proof outlet cover. It is stuck on the side of a 6x6 post that has a large communications box on the other side. I built the J-box hide after seeing them offered for sale on a geocaching website and thinking it was a cool idea. Just tossed together pieces that were already laying around. It has a small yellow geocaching sticker on it as a give away and it is pretty obvious where the hide is at the spot, so poking around the "real" electronic equipment shouldn't be a problem. But that was then...
So, if the concensus is that these types of hides should go away, then I'll gladly figure out some other type of hide for that location and change it. The J-box was just the easiest placement for that area, but other options do exist. I think the main issue here is to get the hide off the real communications equipment post.
The other question, or maybe point to make, is about the use of a J-box as a cache container. While I placed this one such that it kinda blends in with the surroundings, it is very obvious that it is not a real electrical outlet. Opening the hinged cover is no different than opening the one mounted by your own garage door, but this one has no outlets and no wires at all. So, would anyone have a problem with placing a fake J-box in a location that would be totally obvious that it is not real? I'm thinking miles away from the nearest power grid and not attached to anything that has any real electrical functions. Or should we just scrap the idea of using anything that even looks electrical, regardless of the location?
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Dec 24, 2008 9:45:42 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by davemeister on Dec 26, 2008 15:57:23 GMT -9
Hhhmmm, Interesting topic. I do whole-heartedly agree with the blog. I have 2 "electrical" caches myself: "Powerdown" and "Powerdown 2". These are two harmless junction boxes but are located around electrical areas. I'll definately have to think about archiving these. Some really neat and interesting caches have some electrical association with them and will be a shame to see them go..."Horsepower" and "A Stream runs through it". Not sure if both are active at this time. The blog is definately food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by li1gray on Dec 26, 2008 18:04:48 GMT -9
This is a very interesting blog. The guy has his Sh** together and you can't argue about what he is saying. In our community with winter here we has the possibility with the icy streets to see crashes into some of theseitems he's pointed out. Yes I can say I've not been hit by electric from one of these caches yet and I am usually not looking for these with children. I am sure it wouldn't take away any of the fun for sure. I recently was looking for a cache and found the remanents of the deicer in the culvert, no wires around but still you never know what is under the snow. I was even thinking about a couple of those electrical fake boxes as well and have a couple of the covers already to go. Thanks for the linkLBK. Does this mean no tubular series caches or ones under the bike trail bridges as we have wires that run under many of these in conduit and the bridge itself is metal too? How do you think they run the electric to the lights onthe trails.
Ummm how much risk do I want to take to find a cache. I don't have the ropes to climb to get some of MTboy caches but would love to go get them. RISKY
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 5, 2009 23:22:45 GMT -9
Ah ... here I go again. I have one question, and a comment. In all the years that Geocaching has been a going concern in Alaska, or the world for that matter, how many people have reported injury from one of these caches? It seems to me that the vast majority of cachers exert reasonable common sense when locating a cache near any sort of equipment. The ones that do not are usually quickly notified.
I personally find rusty metal, broken glass, bridges over steep cliffs (or swiftly moving water), potential animal dens, spider infested spaces, inebriated homeless people, bear habitat, moose habitat, etc., more dangerous than the few fake electrical hides I have encountered.
I'm waiting for the tee shirt that says: "I USE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR MILITARY SATTELITES TO SEARCH FOR CLEARLY MARKED REGULATION COMPLIANT CONTAINERS IN THE FIVE AUTHORIZED LOCATIONS."
Sorry, but this looks to me like a case of - 'When the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing looks like a nail'.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 6, 2009 17:13:13 GMT -9
Point #1 - electrical box hide locations aren't approvable under geocaching.com guidelines about permission from the property owner.
Point #2 - the referenced blog, by an electrical utility safety officer (and geocacher), exhorts geocachers to be aware that electrical boxes / lamp posts etc aren't as benign as they appear, and should be avoided by geocachers placing hides.
Points 1 & 2 aren't my own thoughts on this topic - they're geocaching.com's thoughts and the electrical industry's thoughts, respectively. Sure - there's lots of places where caches can be found which present their own 'exciting' risks for retrieval - and which are placed in a manner fully conforming to geocaching.com guidelines. Lots of cachers getting injured too - by all sorts of hazards (there's even some forum threads and geocoins about those injuries!). The question posed by the original poster isn't about how much risk we individually are willing to assume in hunting caches - it's about how we regard cache hides on electrical equipment AFTER WE'VE READ THE REFERENCED BLOG. All other remarks about caching (including what other risks we endure - either proudly or unawaredly - in questing for the cache) are off-topic (which admittedly can be fun too).
Once an individual has read the referenced blog, that person should no longer be ignorant of the electrical industry's own acknowledgement that utility boxes/light poles/electrical vaults/switch boxes aren't without risk. Equipped with the knowledge that even the electrical industry worker approaches those facilities with caution, the prudent individual will avoid messing around with them at all - and geocachers especially, since it's not an approvable hide location.
As the safety officer (one of those 'extra' duties as assigned) for my employer, I'm aware that you are criminally and civilly liable if you knowingly or carelessly cause another person harm - regardless of whatever disclaimers or 'hold-harmless' agreements may exist. My newest son-in-law (and newbie geocacher) is an apprentice lineman - with a literal book full of examples of 'ground failures' in electrical equipment. He wouldn't touch an electrical box in looking for a cache - too many ways for it to be unsafe, according to his own professional training (reaching into the hundreds of hours).
Reaching off-topic beyond the electrical hide issue, I don't think much of putting another person in harm's way inadvertently. Some risk is expected in seeking a cache (about as much as you'd find taking a walk in the woods), and that risk manifests itself differently based on the weather, the location, and each cache's unique environment. I choose to tell cachers about any 'extra' risks I perceive in my cache placements on my cache pages (even to the extent of warning people about the potential for their dogs to run off a nearby cliff - but then, I really like dogs...). While there's always the risk of spiders/wild animals/bad people etc in any hide placement (ugh - you should SEE the black widow spiders in SoCal! They're everywhere!), I remark about those things which are above and beyond what a family walking in the woods might be prepared to find. It's the 'golden rule' in action - I'd sure like to believe that the person placing the geocache that I'm seeking hasn't drawn me unsuspectingly into a situation I'm not otherwise prepared for or that's unreasonably risky (beyond that afore-mentioned 'walk in the woods' level of preparedness), where the cache placer knows there's an elevated level of risk beyond the apparent norm. There's some excellent attribute icons for this very purpose, although not everyone uses them when they stand up their cache page.
In summation (on-topic), my take is the electrical/utility box hide is outside of geocaching.com placement guidelines and in a place that informed common sense says 'don't use'. There's certainly some judgment calls based on the proximity of nearby electrical utilities to a cache hide location, but the utility box/electrical site itself is outside the scope of allowed (and reasonably safe) placement.
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 6, 2009 22:49:12 GMT -9
I agree with your summary completely, and your statement that experienced geocachers would not knowingly place a cache in a hazardous location. My only problem was wth the 'flavor' the thread was taking.
Incidentally, (for Kappling) we thought 'WAR OF THE WORLDS' was a great hide. We talked about it for quite some time, and had a lot of fun finding it. ... And IMHO it was completely safe.
I don't feel my comments were off-topic in the least. The point of my remarks and the main reason for making the post was that with little effort, it's possible take any cache placement that has a hint of danger, and come up with reasons to irrationally eliminate it altogether. Case in point - schoolyards and their associated playground equipment are now considered 'attractive nusances' by, I'm sure, well meaning risk managers.
And I would have loved to have read the blog, but there was no link to it that I could find.
Granted we, AK-DSP, have only found about 360 caches so far, but a significant number of them have been in, on, or near something electrical. None has posed a realistic threat. That is not to say that they could have been dangerous if common sense were not used in their placement or discovery.
I will end this with a question which is actually asked only half tongue-in-cheek.
One of our caches went missing a few weeks ago. (The only one to vanish of 11 we have put out) - 'I AM THE LIGHT - GC1GDQ9' - The container was a small light bulb that had been hollowed out to hold the log. The bulb was screwed into a standard base with no wires attached. The socket was glued to a wooden clothes pin and affixed to the branch of a tree ... in the woods. Did one of you guys happen to remove it, thinking it was (or was representative of) an electrical hazard?
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 7, 2009 5:18:08 GMT -9
Case in point - schoolyards and their associated playground equipment are now considered 'attractive nusances' by, I'm sure, well meaning risk managers. School yards are not approved hide locations because of the "appearance" adults have poking around/hanging around equipment used by children. In Anchorage, people have complained about hides 10-20 feet outside elementary school fences. The link blog is in the initial post of this thread. Here it is again: link. Therein lies the rub for me. How do you know there wasn't a threat? Do you have and are you trained on the use of electrical test equipment to verify there is not a dangerous electrical potential just waiting for an easy pathway to ground? Or, is the fact that someone (most likely not electrically trained) hid the cache at the location and fifty other cachers (also most likely not electrically trained) have found it without incident what you are basing your decision on? I think it's very significant that NorthWes said his son-in-law, who is trained to work on electrical equipment, won't seek out a cache placed on or near electrical equipment. The power utility out in Eagle River/Chugiak has made it very clear they don't condone placement of caches on their equipment based on a couple of incidents that happened in the past year or two. NorthWes' statement, more than any other, has prompted me to redesign a couple of hides I have in Fairbanks and Valdez or to push the Archive button. When I found your cache on private (but I assume permission obtained) property, I also CITOed out several bags full of liquor bottles, so obviously the area is frequented by noncachers. Since the cache was in plain sight, though well camoed (and, no, I don't feel that it falls under the category of electrical hides this thread was opened for) and/or cachers could have easily been observed by muggles coming or going from the church, in the private yard behind it, and by the people who left the bottles, there is a reasonable likelihood that the cache was removed by someone associated by the church, the nearby resident who got tired of his dog barking at the people tresspassing on the land behind his house, or one of the local vagrants. Did you think of any of these possibilities before you chose to accuse one of your fellow cachers of cache theft in this thread? I take real umbrage at your "half tongue-in-cheek" insinuation that any local cacher would have taken your cache. Since a public accusation has been made, I think a public apology is in order unless you have actual facts. The cache you referenced has been missing since at least November 7 and I didn't open this thread until December 21, a full six weeks later, so I think it's a real stretch for you to connect the two events. I imagine you understand the seriousness of making public accusations of wrongdoing without facts to back up the accusations. I certainly don't intend to serve as the local cache police. If one reads my original post (OP), I state that I am rethinking a few of my hides after reading the electrical equipment blog (which you didn't read...leading to NorthWes' comments about on/off topic) and then I solicited others' thoughts on the subject. I have now decided to redo a few of my hides and be more selective about seeking electrically themed caches. That's how I'm changing my caching behavior after reading the blog and gc.com forums on the subject. Others may choose to react (or not) differently. The one time I had a significant safety issue over a cache, I contacted the cache owner directly with a suggested solution and within a matter of hours the situation was corrected. My next step would have been to take the issue up with one of the Alaskan cache reviewers who have a broader view of application of the cache placement guidelines. I certainly would never independently take action on a cache unless there was an immediate life/safety threat that I felt couldn't wait to be resolved (and I've never found a cache like that).
|
|
|
Post by Forum Admin on Jan 7, 2009 8:01:34 GMT -9
Case in point - schoolyards and their associated playground equipment are now considered 'attractive nusances' by, I'm sure, well meaning risk managers. School yards are not approved hide locations because of the "appearance" adults have poking around/hanging around equipment used by children. In Anchorage, people have complained about hides 10-20 feet outside elementary school fences. The link blog is in the initial post of this thread. Here it is again: link. Therein lies the rub for me. How do you know there wasn't a threat? Do you have and are you trained on the use of electrical test equipment to verify there is not a dangerous electrical potential just waiting for an easy pathway to ground? Or, is the fact that someone (most likely electrically trained) hid the cache at the location and fifty other cachers (also most likely not electrically trained) have found it without incident what you are basing your decision on? I think it's very significant that NorthWes said his son-in-law, who is trained to work on electrical equipment, won't seek out a cache placed on or near electrical equipment. The power utility out in Eagle River/Chugiak has made it very clear they don't condone placement of caches on their equipment based on a couple of incidents that happened in the past year or two. NorthWes' statement, more than any other, has prompted me to redesign a couple of hides I have in Fairbanks and Valdez or to push the Archive button. When I found your cache on private (but I assume permission obtained) property, I also CITOed out several bags full of liquor bottles, so obviously the area is frequented by noncachers. Since the cache was in plain sight, though well camoed (and, no, I don't feel that it falls under the category of electrical hides this thread was opened for) and/or cachers could have easily been observed by muggles coming or going from the church, in the private yard behind it, and by the people who left the bottles, there is a reasonable likelihood that the cache was removed by someone associated by the church, the nearby resident who got tired of his dog barking at the people tresspassing on the land behind his house, or one of the local vagrants. Did you think of any of these possibilities before you chose to accuse one of your fellow cachers of cache theft in this thread? I take real umbrage at your "half tongue-in-cheek" insinuation that any local cacher would have taken your cache. Since a public accusation has been made, I think a public apology is in order unless you have actual facts. I imagine you understand the seriousness of making public accusations of wrongdoing without facts to back up the accusations. I certainly don't intend to serve as the local cache police. If one reads my original post (OP), I state that I am rethinking a few of my hides after reading the electrical equipment blog (which you didn't read...leading to NorthWes' comments about on/off topic) and then I solicited others' thoughts on the subject. I have now decided to redo a few of my hides and be more selective about seeking electrically themed caches. That's how I'm changing my caching behavior after reading the blog and gc.com forums on the subject. Others may choose to react (or not) differently. The one time I had a significant safety issue over a cache, I contacted the cache owner directly with a suggested solution and within a matter of hours the situation was corrected. My next step would have been to take the issue up with one of the Alaskan cache reviewers who have a broader view of application of the cache placement guidelines. I certainly would never independently take action on a cache unless there was an immediate life/safety threat that I felt couldn't wait to be resolved (and I've never found a cache like that). Agree with all this post. I have at least one that looks like an electrical product but is placed far enough away from real electrical boxes so as to be rather innocent. If anyone disagrees, I'd gladly move it.
|
|
|
Post by omgcrew on Jan 7, 2009 9:31:24 GMT -9
WOW!
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 7, 2009 10:23:08 GMT -9
The original purpose of this thread was to help illuminate the hazards geocachers face when playing on or near utility boxes, lamp posts, etc. Without reading the referenced blog (which can be linked-to by hovering the mouse over the words ‘This blog’ in the original post – something not obvious at first blush to all users) any person commenting is not going to be completely aware of the full scope of the discussion. It’s a lengthy blog – too long to reproduce in the original post, and it’s about a deadly serious topic. Almost everyone’s aware (thanks to a recent spectacular failure in Minnesota) of the aging bridge network in America… but most folks aren’t aware of the hazards inherent in the aging electrical distribution grid infrastructure. Read the blog – equip yourself with knowledge to understand why no utility company would grant permission for their infrastructure to be used in our game play. And – I’m not pointing out any prior or existing cache hides as examples (either good or bad) regarding this issue. I’ve got my own ‘found’ logs on some that I wouldn’t approach today, having been made more aware of the hazards potential in this sort of hide. That’s the point of the original post – to enhance awareness – not to take potshots at individual caches or cachers, or get angsty or irritated because this issue exists.
Like Ladybug Kids (LBK), I’m very sensitive to implications that I might be out to take on the role of ‘cache police’ or that I might alter/pull/destroy a cacher’s hide instead of contacting them in person first about a cache issue. Any question ‘actually asked only half tongue-in-cheek’ like this about my caching practice goes past the usual thick-skinned attitude I have and merits a response. I’m assuming the sarcasm inherent in asking the question is because the referenced blog wasn't read, and I’m going to accept that as why such a silly statement would be made about LBK’s or my own judgment on this issue, or how we’d handle another cacher’s property (meaning their cache hide). Frankly, the cache mentioned ('I AM THE LIGHT - GC1GDQ9') sounds like a creatively constructed micro-hide, but it’s in the kind of location I usually pass-up searching in (I’m not a fan of the neighborhood hide format, for my own experiential reasons).
It’s disappointing to see the opportunity to learn more about a safety issue get so far off topic as to directly imply that I removed a cache because it looks like a light bulb…
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 7, 2009 11:28:10 GMT -9
Hmmm, ok, well let me start with my first apology, and that is for causing this forum to stray off topic. I should, and will start another forum or find one that fits when I get the hang of this. If you will indulge me one more time, I will end on-topic, I promise.
As I have previously mentioned to more than one of my fellow geocachers, I, my wife, and daughter (DSP) started caching for the fun of it. It's fun to seek/hide, we get much needed excersise, and we have met some great people in the process. I also stated that when it ceases to be fun, we will quit ... and we will.
But this IS fun. As enjoyable as locating that cache at 5:30 on a frosty morning just as the batteries are dying in our flashlight, and realizing that we are FTF. Well, maybe not that much fun, but it is spirited, and that's a good thing IMHO.
Anyone (almost anyone, it seems) who has met us 'in the field', at an event, read our logs, or found our caches, knows our intentions and hearts are in the right place.
I did not accuse anybody of thievery, stealing, or abscondary (if that is even a real word). The word I used was 'remove', and it was used more in the context of say, environmental militancy ... to convey a subtle 'holier-than-thou' connotation. By the way, 'half tongue-in-cheek' was not meant to be taken literally, as it was more like 6.5% - 93.5%. So I apologize publicly, and with all sincerity for the misunderstanding. Geocachers by definition, in my opiniion, must be honest and trustworthy to a fault for the game/sport to survive. I mean that, I really do.
(On-topic) Ok, here's the nut, the crux. Some blogger writes what is by all accounts, an informative opinion piece about cache placement in and around electrical equipment.
With absolutely no sarcasm intended, what is the point of bringing it up? I would really like ... no, I really need to know. Except for stating the obvious, what are we to come away with?
There are literally dozens of 'park-and-grab' light pole caches of the so called 'up skirt' variety. Is there a suggestion here that all of those should be archived due to potential ground fault hazard?
There are many more mag-nanos and magnetized Altoid boxes on the bottoms and sides of equipment enclosures. Are these to be removed as well?
I am not being contrary or confrontational here, but what about caches that look like something electrical, but are not? I have heard of a well known cache in Amsterdam that is a fake on/off switch attached to a street light support. It has been there for years ... Should that and all others like it be archived? There is a cache on Government Hill constructed using a small utility box attached to a tree. Should that one and others similar it be pulled?
How about a bison hanging in a bush near a light pole, such that a cacher would logically check the skirt? Should there be a warning that the cache is not on the pole?
And what of my light bulb cache? I am absolutely serious here ... If I replace it, should I have genuine concerns , should it be taken again, that the person will try to screw it into a live socket?
Now then, this, being a forum, I am eagerly anticipating some insights, or at least some discussions on the subject.
AK-DSP
Ok, I just read the blog . Thanks for the info on how to access it. It was well done and informative if not a tad over the top. No sarcasm here, just an observation, but I noticed that he wore no safety vest, had no boots, nor did he have a pokey stick.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 7, 2009 14:38:24 GMT -9
Hey - glad the tips got you onto the blog, AKDSP! I miss the subtle 'link' cues myself quite often.
LBK & I are very sensitized to claims regarding cache theft - it's been an ongoing issue here (and I don't want to discuss it in this thread - ask me in person and I'll tell ya). As well, we're prickly about being misinterpreted in our motives regarding building up caching - it's an old story from another time, but it still rankles and we're adamant that we don't want our motives misunderstood. Having said all that, thanks for the apologies - bygones be bygones.
Your larger question's a good one - and the point of the thread was to heighten awareness about something most folks wouldn't know about (electrical equipment safety). Regardless of how what's gone on before, it's good to know that those boxes and poles aren't as benign as they look. As for the judgment calls regarding how close / existing hides / simulated hides - they're judgment calls. Now that you've had a chance to read the blog yourself, you're better equipped than ever to make those judgment calls. These forums are great for information transfer, as long as the information doesn't get tangled up in the discussions afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 7, 2009 17:10:18 GMT -9
but it is spirited, and that's a good thing IMHO. I agree...spirited forum conversations help make forums useful to people and bring viewers back to learn/read more. There aren't many things that feel more futile than to post something in these forums and not hear "boo!" from anyone. On the other hand, personal attacks (perceived or otherwise), etc., are what quickly put a thread into a death spiral and it happens a lot in the gc.com forums. It's hoped these forums stay friendly so people want to come back and the readership grows. Got'cha. I read your post with the wrong context and replied as such. Thank you! In retrospect, I wish I'd pinged you privately via PM or e-mail rather than "fighting fire with fire" publically in this thread. More information around which to wrap one's mind and make an informed decision about the types of caches one hides and searches for. The information I gathered from the blog and other gc.com threads plus NorthWes' post has moved me to move my electrically themed caches and approach (or not) "electrical" caches differently in the future. As stated in an earlier post, it's not my intent to make a blanket statement or act as the self-appointed cache police. What I've read to date hasn't made me an electrical expert, so I don't think I have the expertise to make blanket statements about such hides. However, the gc.com guideline of "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location" eliminates any wiggle room for me since it's a pretty good bet utility companies would never provide said permission to use their equipment. I don't really feel like doing any explaining to a utility company representative, so I'll just be moving my caches along...
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 7, 2009 19:08:38 GMT -9
Well, I guess the bottom line is that there should be a few more cachers watching the forums. To end it, I have no hard feelings ... never did.
I have done a little research regarding, specifically, 'skirt lifter' hides on light poles, and found some interesting facts.
1.) They are pretty much universally used world wide.
2.) There is no mention of anyone ever being injured electrically or otherwise.
3.) Most cachers grow weary of them after a while unless the find is associated with another activity (e.g. sightseeing, etc.).
4.) The is no mention of a ban on this type of hide that I can find.
5.) Given that death by touching a light pole while geocaching is a known statistical 0, and death by being hit by a meteorite is supposedly 182138880000000 To 1, I'd rather be lifting the skirt and grabbing the hide.
I feel the skirt caches serve useful purposes. They are fun to find for beginning cachers, and they can bring people who are unfamiliar with an area to interesting or useful urban places to name a couple.
My critique of the johnnygeo blog is that it would be helpful if a person had little or no knowledge of electrical hazards, with the proviso that said person took the time to ground him/herself (pun intended) in reality. Using photos of horrible injuries not remotely associated with geocaching, and linking news stories of electrocutions and electrical shocks that also have nothing whatsoever to do with the game/sport are, in my opinion, blatant disinformation (to be kind). He also mentions the need for day-glo orange vests, and heavy boots for caching, yet in none of his photos is he wearing either ... I suspect that he knew he'd look a bit silly.
The primary thing I took away from the blog was validation regarding messing around metal boxes with switches and levers. Cache or no cache I leave them alone ... unless they're in the woods.
If there is anyone who would comment on how they now feel about skirt caches after reading the blog, and after taking the time to think about them realistically, I for one would like to hear what you have to say.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 7, 2009 21:40:30 GMT -9
Okay, I'll bite -- I generally don't care for skirt lifter caches because they rarely take me someplace above ordinary that makes me say "cool" (reference my more detailed signature line, below). After becoming more informed about electrical equipment and thinking back on the number of exposed wires I have seen inside lamp posts (albeit without getting shocked), I am even less keen about them. I do remember saying "cool" when I found my first skirt lifter (and at the time was Anchorage's only skirt lifter) at "It's a Jungle Out There" the evening I discovered geocaching. I would still stay "cool" today given the wonderful 360° view from the elevated cache location. However, the vast majority of skirt lifter caches I have logged since that initial "cool" moment have been located in shopping mall parking lots, behind coffee houses, in private business parking lots and other places which usually leave me wondering, "now why did the cache hider bring me here?" A cache hider could help me out (I am blonde, after all), but telling a bit about what is compelling about the location on their cache page..."this is a great place to get quiche in Anchorage" or "my wife and I would meet here on Thursday nights when we were dating" or "the kids and I come here often for ice cream." If the location doesn't speak for itself, PLEASE speak for the location. If one can't think of a good reason to bring other cachers to a location other than "I'm more than 528' from the nearest cache," then maybe the location isn't worthy/compelling enough for a cache. Also, the skirt lifter hide style has already been done in Anchorage and Fairbanks, so where the creativity in hiding more? The first one is cool, the tenth one is "oh, I've seen that done before." So, I don't care for most skirt lifter cachers (as well as most other urban micros and nanos that don't take me to a place of redeeming value, which, I realize is in the eye of the beholder), while most others appear to enjoy them. The gc.com forums are rife with angsty threads expressing both points of view, so I'm not going to rant further against them. I know I'm in the small minority...the numbers don't lie...for every find on an Upper Hillside or Chugach front range peak cache there are 10-100 finds on a skirt lifter in midtown. One of the beauties of geocaching is that it's something different to each player of the game, so cache on! My biggest wish is that I had more time to exclusively pursue MTBoy and Ridgeseeker caches...I've never been disappointed by any of their choices for a cache location. Even my relatively recent DNF on Ridgeseeker's "Victor Borge" cache left me with more good memories than all my skirt lifter finds combined. Full disclosure: I do own a skirt lifter cache in Fairbanks. The cache is at the end of several stages that introduce people to the interpretive exhibits at Creamers Field Migratory Bird Refuge. I will move the container to a non-lamp post location during my next business trip to Fairbanks if it's not -50° F.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 7, 2009 22:37:39 GMT -9
'Skirtlifters!' Well, they're great when you're on a 'cache machine' numbers run (I think there were quite a few encountered during a memorable 10 cache per hour afternoon run in SoCal a year or so ago...). However, they're not memorable for much else... although I have to say they can harbor some surprises.
The second-grossest* moment I've ever experienced caching was with a lamp post hide in an otherwise nice park in Las Vegas (the firefighter memorial park, well west of the whole strip scene). I zeroed out at a post, squatted down to lift the cover, and bowled over backwards as a swarming flood of cockroaches burst out and ran over me as the cover came up! Arrrrgh! I didn't get electrified, but a nearby dogwalker almost had a seizure laughing at my screaming reaction. He said his dog wouldn't pee on those lamp posts in the Las Vegas parks anymore because the bugs would 'swarm' him afterwards. Now, I only own female dogs in part because I can't abide the male hound's 'pee on anything vertical' gig... and hadn't applied that thought to the lamp post hide scenario before that moment either. By the time I was back to the hotel and told my wife it had become a funny incident, but at the time I was fairly freaked out by the bug swarm! And yes - you can bet I signed the cache log on that hide - I earned that smilie!
I have encountered several posts with exposed wiring (i.e. no insulation on the wires) under the cover - old mall sites, and one on the only find I made in Delaware (on a sign structure of all things!). What's kind of funny about this topic is that this afternoon one of the pedestal signs our maintenance crew visited for a repair call was nonfunctioning due to a short into one face of the sign cabinet... unusual, but not unexpected. While it's likely we'll never encounter the electric shock of our life from a misplaced cache hide, I don't want to go down in the history books with that dubious distinction as my claim to fame!
I can't answer conclusively the question you raised about the fact that there's a lot of these kind of caches out there... in retrospect I doubt any cache approver would knowingly say 'that's an approvable hide'. However - they're out there by the thousands, aren't they? I think it's better to be up front first, rather than beg forgiveness later, so I tell the cache approver in the initial cache submission log exactly how I've hidden my cache being reviewed - that way he/she has all the details for judging the suitability of the hide and it helps keep me out of trouble. That philosophy of mine doesn't explain away all those apparently unapprovable (but operating) skirtlifter and utility box cache hides, but it does provide my point of view about them (which won't change the world or solve the global deep freeze one tiny bit).
*Oh - and for the curious - my grossest moment was realizing a recovered ammo can that had been 'muggled' in Connors Bog had actually been crapped in by the muggles... not the treasure one might be expecting to find in the ammo can, I can assure you - especially after it had been out in the sun 'baking' for awhile. Just plain not fun.
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 8, 2009 9:43:31 GMT -9
I don't mean to belabor the topic of skirt caches, but they serve as a good example for the moment, and they keep me on-topic ... mostly.
Forgive me, but I checked both your profiles to see how many finds you had, and given that I have about 360 so far, northwes has roughly 1000 more, and lbk has about 2000 more. Assuming there is such a person as 'the average geocacher', and if we also assume that there exists a 'typical geocaching lifecycle'. It is probably safe to say that the both of you are 'longer of tooth' geocaching-wise than I. (That was kind of a compliment, I think.)
Taking into account the lifecycle analogy, there was, I'll bet, a time when it was fun to get together with your family members, or other cachers and make what amounts to 'a numbers run' ... . You may have been visiting a city for the first time, and wanted to be able to get 'on the board' by logging a few simple caches, yada yada. For whatever reason, I feel fairly confident that the skirt caches at some point were more important to you.
Being tech savy enough to go out and purcahse a GPSr and start geocaching, I am sure you ... skipping to the point ... we all know instinctively that there are wires in those poles. They are no less safe now then they were way back when, and the same issues of private land ownership and infrastructure were with us then as now.
If you say you will think twice about approaching a skirt hide now, why is that? Is it because you feel they are now unsafe, or is it because after all this time you have evolved as geocachers to the point they are boring, and you have 'moved on', so to speak?
If there truly is a danger out there, isn't a person obligated to take a stand and protect his/her friends from injury?
I am asking because I am truly interested. I see my own attitudes toward this 'hobby' changing even at my point of involvement, so I am genuinely curious.
(off topic) I think my grossest caching moment(s) was at a cache off Dowling Rd. At the end of a nice trail was a swampy boggy mosquito infested area that held an old rusty car ... Fought the bugs, but never located the cache. That's when I pretty much decided leave that type of hide alone.
|
|
|
Post by Valerieseaker on Jan 8, 2009 13:15:00 GMT -9
I have about 100 less finds than akdsp, so I'm shorter of tooth(?) I agree with LBK. My first skirt-lifter's pieces were separated a bit and I could see the cache inside, but I didn't know how to get to it. I wondered if I had to unscrew the pieces (was that allowed?) I wiggled the sides to see if they would come apart more, and it lifted up a bit. WOW - it lifts up! I had no idea. Really! The next few, yea I've seen this before. Now I feel like why even bother? I do like "It's a Jungle Out There" because it's on the roof, which is clever, and it is a great view. I could see visitors appreciating the view, and the cache.
Traveling, I can't think of any skirt-lifters I've appreciated. What I really like about Geo-caching while traveling is discovering places I wouldn't have found otherwise. Lakes, parks, trails, and some great Earthcaches. If I was trying to run up my numbers (which I'm not) I still wouldn't want a skirt-lifter. Even if I had a lay-over at an airport, and there was a cache near my gate, I'd want it to be more creative than a skirt-lifter. (I know - there aren't lamp posts in airports, etc.) Almost always there is another place to put a small cache and still have it a drive-up type. We have some that look like they are going to be skirt-lifers but aren't. Like the Bronco Bryan's Blazing Bison. I was glad it wasn't a s-l. Even though it's extremely cold out and would have been nice to find the cache and sign it in under 10 seconds, the cache made me think a bit and look around. Much more worthwhile than -yawn- a s-l.
Now, the cockroaches in NorthWes' skirt lifter - that's kind of unique, unexpected (he he), I like it. I will remember not to go after that one, though!
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 8, 2009 13:34:43 GMT -9
Taking into account the lifecycle analogy, there was, I'll bet, a time when it was fun to get together with your family members, or other cachers and make what amounts to 'a numbers run' ... . You may have been visiting a city for the first time, and wanted to be able to get 'on the board' by logging a few simple caches, yada yada. For whatever reason, I feel fairly confident that the skirt caches at some point were more important to you. Yup, I used to go out with family members. But, once we found the ammo cans in the Interior and micros became the typical cache, the junior ladybugs developed a dislike for caching unless "treasure" was involved. For the time being, though my family rarely caches together anymore, I'm keeping the LBK moniker in the hope that through the puzzle caches and the outside hope that small and large containers with nice swag come back into vogue, they'll get enthusiastic about caching again. With respect to skirt lifters ever being "important," nothing could be further from the truth. NorthWes and Scobey can attest to the fact that during a "numbers run" across Anchorage awhile back when I was down visiting from Fairbanks, after 2-3 skirt lifters and a few nanos in locations of no decernable redeeming value, I'd had enough and headed for the barn. Nowadays, I'll map a new area, look for clusters of caches in parks and along trails, attempt to eliminate the micros using a GSAK sort, and lay out a route that will introduce me to more rural areas of a new location. It is true that during certain "numbers runs," that lamp post and guard rail caches have contributed to the numbers, but they have been in the relative minority. NorthWes, Scobey, and I found 61 caches in one day outside of Palm Springs, but I don't think there was a lamp post in the batch. Instead, we hiked the Pushawalla Trail and a slot canyon with a few stops in between. On another day, we focused on coastal earthcaches which greatly reduced the number of urban caches we could have searched for due to time constraints. I primarily use caching as a means to get to know an area (and I don't mean Target, Starbucks, and Walmart), not boost my numbers. Frankly, my reaction to a skirt cache in another location is "I can't believe I traveled ____ miles to find one of these!" That is a much different reaction than if I find a cleverly done urban micro of a design I previously haven't seen. Recently, I had a blast finding eight caches in a park in the predawn light on the shore Lake Huron where the thumb of Michigan sticks out and then wrapped up the morning with the relative "downer" experience of finding two skirt lifters in a Walmart and a closed down Hooters parking lot before running for the airport. I would have rather spent 10-15 minutes more on the lake shore than end up in Mall Land, but I'd mapped the caches and thought they were along the fringe of a bird refuge and instead, a part of paradise had been paved under. That's how caching goes! As stated in previous posts in this thread, having read johnnygeo's blog and posts in the gc.com forums written by other geocachers that know more about electricity than I do, I have a different appreciation of the risks involved and will change my behavior. Other people will respond differently to the same information. Which is why I opened the thread. I hope that by sharing the information others can do an assessment and arrive at their own conclusions. My way of "taking a stand" is to pull my caches at electrical locations (easy enough to do...will just require extra creativity to reestablish the hide nearby) as a means of leading by example. I also will not hunt caches that present a risk that I cannot quantify since I do not know what I do not know about electricity. Please note -- I'm not anti-micro or -nano. I know some folks like finding them. Some folks like hiding them. It's just like some cachers are selective about which puzzle caches they tackle, I'm selective about what tradition caches I'll hunt. Cache on!
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 8, 2009 14:20:30 GMT -9
The novelty of Lamp Post Caches (LPCs) wore off quickly for me and I now find them boring as a location to hide a cache. Their location’s lack of approval by the ‘owner’ makes them unappealing too. And frankly I've never thought much of them as a safe place to be poking about either - even less so now that I've read that blog.
I agree wholeheartedly that if a practice is unsafe it’s responsible behavior to speak out about it – which is why I’ve taken the time to respond vigorously and positively in support of the position advocated by the geocacher/safety officer who wrote the blog referenced by LBK. In the “Intro To Geocaching” classes I present on behalf of MOA Parks & BLM, I speak against the practice of this kind of placement and have done so for the last two years. Folks posting to this thread have indicated they’re going to review their own cache placements in light of what they’ve read as well.
The geocaching lifecycle analogy has some validity, but just as geocaching offers a broad spectrum of choice between micros/big hides and urban/backwoods hides, so there’s a wide spectrum of personalities in the game as well. I like the journey as much as the destination (the find) – and often cache with dogs, asserting that geocaching is the second-best reason for walking said dogs. I also use geocache placements to guide me in selecting hikes to scenic spots while I’m traveling outside. Others are simply out for the find itself, with the journey or the ‘aesthetic scenic value’ of the destination a more distant consideration. There’s those slightly odd cachers whose biggest thrill is in finding those pesky puzzle caches… which leave me confounded in most cases. As an extreme, there’s those really odd cachers who like to spend hours seeking after benchmarks! I’d suggest there’s a refinement to the lifecycle analogy which would view it as a learning and personal discernment curve – where the cacher who seeks across the full spectrum of choices at the beginning learns over time what appeals to their individual desires and then focuses on that sort of cache as their primary choice.
The micro holds far less appeal to me today than it once did – which doesn’t make micros a ‘bad’ hide style, just not a preferred choice for me to seek when I have other options. Now, having said that, there’s no way a ‘cache machine’ (a specific plan across hours or even days of caching time) can be put together for the purpose of finding large numbers of caches without including micros – that sort of cache is simply too common to ignore when caching to boost the ‘found’ count. And – in most locales I’ve cached outside of Alaska, the LPC is a primary type of micro hide – so they’ll be encountered without a doubt. (Edit - As LBK noted in his most recent post - you can plan to miss them if you're really good at building cache runs - and you'll see lots of them as you sort the raw data.)
Regardless of how no one has yet been electrocuted by an LPC hide that we know of, why place ‘em there when it’s not an approved location nor is it (by that industry’s own apparent assertion) a safe place to be messing around either? The apparently benign presence of platoons of them already in place doesn’t mean it’s a practice that should be promoted. There’s truly a danger out there inherent in the LPC type of hide.
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 8, 2009 18:27:49 GMT -9
[valerieseaker:] I have about 100 less finds than akdsp, so I'm shorter of tooth(?) "Long of tooth" usually means "older". in this case I meant, more experienced - someone who had been caching longer than I. I have been dong it for about nine months, and I see that you have been at it since 2007. You have been caching for a longer time though I assume you are being much more selective in your choices. I admit to having developed a 'slight passion for the thing'. [valerieseaker:] We have some that look like they are going to be skirt-lifers but aren't. Like the Bronco Bryan's Blazing Bison.We went after the same cache, and the first thing I did was check the skirt. The effect was to have a 'ho-hum moment', and then realize we had to actually hunt of the container. If that was intentional, IMHO, it was pretty cool. Having said that, and I agree it could have been another boring find, but was it unsafe to the point you ignored the lamp pole? And will you not lift the skirt or even touch the lamp pole the next time? [valerieseaker:] Roaches.If I had been with northwes on that find, I probably would have lost it completely. Roaches (and maggots) are the stuff of nightmares as far as I'm concerned. ******************* Well, thanks for the responses. The comments were not totally unexpected, but were totally REspected, if that matters. by the way, I wasn't out to change minds ... just listen to them tick. One of the greatest sources of enjoyment in geocaching,for me, as it is generally in life, is meeting the people involved, and finding what motivates them. You are right, of course, there are many ways to participate - that's why I refer to it as a game/sport. If the truth be known, I don't think I will ever find myself placing an LPC (nice, I like that much better than 'skirt lifter'), though I don't think I could ever buy into the safety issue. The freely movable skirts are primarily a cosmetic appliance, IMHO. I will continue to search for them if there is an interesting location or event involved ... or 'just because' if they are handy. Sorry to have ruffled any feathers ... my intentions are usually honorable, but sometimes I can't help myself. The coffee or hot chocolate is on me if I see you out there in the world.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 9, 2009 6:44:07 GMT -9
[valerieseaker:] We have some that look like they are going to be skirt-lifers but aren't. Like the Bronco Bryan's Blazing Bison.Having said that, and I agree it could have been another boring find, but was it unsafe to the point you ignored the lamp pole? And will you not lift the skirt or even touch the lamp pole the next time? Without repeating the safety-related reasons "why not" previously stated in this thread, most likely "not." Other reasons why I haven't hunted up this cache include: 1) Tundra Tim's DNF log that mentions Mall Security. Are Mall Management and Security aware of the cache (and the two or three others on the property)? I'd really not have to explain the existance of the cache to Mall Security on behalf of the cache owner. Slatrat does a nice job on "The Little Pictures - Anchorage" of letting folks know the business owner has approved placement of the cache by stating on her cache page: "The final cache is at one of my favorite locales...donated by the very generous cache hosts." 2) The cache is in the vicinity of Old Seward Highway and Dimond, a congested traffic area that I try never to venture into. I'm not saying caches shouldn't be placed in location like that if there is something compelling about the location, it's just that some people love going to the Mall and I avoid the Mall at almost any cost. Now that I've derailed this thread by again mentioning "permission," I've opened a separate thread on that topic [blue]here.[/blue]
|
|
ak-dsp
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 27
|
Post by ak-dsp on Jan 9, 2009 9:36:29 GMT -9
[Ladybugkids:] Without repeating the safety-related reasons "why not" previously stated in this thread ...
I understand fully your position, and I respect your opinion. The reply was actually directed toward valerieseaker. The situations regarding private property and permission, etc. are what they are, and the caches exist despite any non-compliance in those areas. I was commenting solely on the alleged safety issue, and whether her attitude regarding LPCs had changed after reading that shocking expose' of a blog. (Just a pun - no sarcasm intended)
(off topic slightly) You guys are tough. Metaphorically speaking, I picked up a thread which turned out to be a rope, and while hoping there would be some pulling and giving. When the slack ran out, I found the other end attached to train going in the opposite direction. No problem with that, the cool thing is that a person can just let go of the rope. I'll probably pick up another thread now and again, but in the future, hopefully I'll be a little more adept at anticipating the unanticipated.
|
|
Broccili
Bronze Cacher
Vehicle TB212QR "Powerstroke"
Posts: 67
|
Post by Broccili on Jan 9, 2009 9:40:50 GMT -9
Caveat: Most folks on this forum are adults.
KIDS!
geocaching can and is a family thing.
Skirts, Nanos, etc., in town are fun with the kids. Mom is shopping, we are disinterested. Pop out the GPSr - hey, there's two caches in the parking lot. We know before walking that their likely to be skirts. Oh well. We're not annoying Mom with "Are you done yet?". We're enjoying ourselves. I've lifted quite a few skirts, didn't sign the log, nor log the find. Why? I hate winding the little logs up and cramming them in the bisons. It's not fair to the owner that I didn't sign the log, so I don't claim (usually) it on the web either.
Back to the topic.
Caches on Electric Stuff.
KIDS! Mine is old enough to go caching on his own, with his friends. Teenagers are notorious for being unable to make logical decisions with imperfect information.
99.9% of the skirts are at the base of a light pole. The skirt is really just a decorative piece of aluminum, tin, galvanized steel, etc. designed to not see the unsightly bolts on a mount. They may hide the access plate for the electrical as well, but those are USUALLY closed with screws/bolts, etc.
I believe that 99.9% of skirts are electrically safe; probably more likely to get cut by a sharp hunk of metal or bit by a spider (lower 48).
So, skirts are generally un-challenging geocaches, mostly safe. The other items mentioned in this post and blog... maybe trouble.
My opinion.
|
|