I've seen far worse questions - I wouldn't say it had to be closed at all.
Sure, it's not the most specific of things going, and it could be made a lot more specific. But then how far do you go before you get too localised?
I'm in a team of 5 people, 2 of which are competent swimmers and one of which has a sprained ankle. I have 2 carabiners, 20m of rope, but no material around to build a raft. The river is approximately 25m wide, looks relatively deep in the middle but shallow towards the edges. There is a broken precarious looking bridge upstream that doesn't look like it'd hold anyone's weight, and the nearest help is 25 miles away. It's also the middle of winter and we have about an hour of light left.
What's the best way to cross this river?
OK, so I'm playing devil's advocate the other way - but the fact of the matter is the line between when questions are too general and too localised is sometimes a fine one, and people's opinions will differ on this.
Personally I think a few more details such as whether the person is in a group wouldn't go amiss, but much more than that and it'd fall in the "too localised" category. At least in my mind.
I did indeed make assumptions in my answer, but I felt they were fair assumptions to make. Generally speaking if someone is in this sort of situation where they absolutely have to cross then they're a long way from help - otherwise you'd just go back and get help, or consider other options. If you're a long way from help then chances are you're out hiking in some way, shape or form, and if this is the case then you'd be foolish not to have basic supplies such as fuel, paracord, etc. on hand. Granted, it's not the only case where one might find themselves in this situation but it is the most likely.
Granted I didn't elaborate much on choosing a time and a place to cross (in fact I'll go add that now!) but that wasn't because I spent the time on other parts of the answer - I could have just as easily added that in anyway and made the answer a bit longer!