Ronbu

I found this thread after posting on the thread from which it sprang. My posts there may have been better posted here but at this stage I will simply crosslink to my two principal posts. The first puts my point of view regarding individual cacher responsibility: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&st=717 (Post 717) The second sets out the reasons why I would NOT support additional warnings: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&st=820 (Post 820) I strongly hold the views that if all cachers strictly followed the guidelines set out by Groundspeak, particularly with regard to cache placement PERMISSION, we would have far fewer illegal caches, (NOT necessarily less interesting or risky to approach) and that sufficient provision is made within the current publishing and posting regime provided by Groundspeak so that additional warnings would be superfluous. That is not to say that the current regime could not be improved. Rather I suggest that if we believe that the current regime has weaknesses we should be working to correct those before we look at adding to what is already a fairly comprehensive system.

The tragic accident that resulted in Willi's death has been the trigger that prompted a call for more, or a greater facility to, provide warnings on cache pages. BUT is our current provision for hazard warnings actually deficient? The fact that a death has occurred during geocaching activity does not automatically mean that it is. This prompts me to examine what facilities we, as geocachers, already have to provide hazard warnings. Cache Owners: When publishing a cache, Cache Owners (CO's) have the ability to: Link to a related web page – Box 6 on "Report A New Cache" page so they have an opportunity to provide warnings there. Provide a background image for the cache listing – Box 7 on the "Report A New Cache" page so here again it would be possible to incorporate a warning. Identify the level of difficulty involved in pursuing the cache and indicate the nature of the area in which the cache is located with Difficulty / Terrain ratings – just over half-way down the "Report A New Cache" page. These provide 92 = 81 possible combinations so gives considerable scope for identifying the nature of the cache and indicating that the cache may have associated hazards and involve special skills or equipment. Groundspeak allows for users to decide how they rate a cache and has also provided guidance on how to use these ratings. If that guidance is followed by CO's then Cache Seekers (CS's) have a standard to help them better understand those ratings. Describe the cache and the approach to the cache using either or both of the short description and the long description – two boxes under "Details" about two thirds down the "Report A New Cache" page. I believe that these panels provide the best opportunity for an owner to provide specific warning of any particular hazard of which they may be aware. Even the hint facility could be used to provide a warning – "Hints & spoiler info." box that occurs next near the bottom of the "Report A New Cache" page. That though, is clearly NOT its intended purpose. Converse with the Groundspeak Reviewer via the "Note to Reviewer" box at the bottom of the "Report A New Cache" page. Additionally: > There is potential to add warning-type attributes to a cache page. Those attributes include several that can be used to warn of hazards. > Images can be added to the cache page and one or more of these could potentially be used to describe or show a hazard, or provide a hazard warning. Edit their cache page. This provides opportunity for a warning to be added in the early part of the cache page at any time after the cache has been published. Cache Seekers Any CS who visits a cache may consider that a cache has an un-notified hazard due to either the CO not adequately using their opportunities above to describe some hazard aspect of the cache, or the situation having changed over time so that a new hazard exists since the cache was first published. In either circumstance the CS has opportunity to: Include mention of that hazard in their Found It or Did Not Find It log so that it is seen by subsequent readers of the logs. Publish a WriteNote warning in the logs section of the cache page about the hazard so that subsequent CS's get a warning. Publish a NeedsMaintenance warning note in the logs section of the cache page about the hazard so that subsequent CS's get a warning AND the CO gets a direct alert of the percieved problem. Publish a Needs Archiving note in the logs section of the cache page so that CS's are warned and both the CO and Groundspeak officials are alerted to the perceived problem. Perhaps that notice could be given a more appropriate name – but that's another issue; and the use suggested here (and elsewhere within the thread) is apparently not quite what this note was originally intended for. Edit any log or note that they themselves have posted. From consideration of the above I believe that there is: Adequate opportunity for the CO to initially describe, or subsequently amend, their cache listing so that any significant hazard(s) associated with a cache is(are) brought to attention in the early part of the cache descripton page. For valid warnings to have their greatest effect they need to be easily and quickly accessible. Adequate provision for any CS to highlight a perceived hazard that has apparently not been brought to attention, either as a short-term note that will eventually tend to be lost in a plethora of logs, or as a message of greater force brought more directly to the attention of the CO, and when necessary the CO and Groundspeak officials, so that appropriate action may be taken. No reasonable argument for CS's to have the ability to change any part of the cache page except logs or notes that they have themselves posted. Groundspeak makes it quite clear that each cache is the responsibility of its CO. No one other than the CO or Groundspeak should have the power to physically change what the owner has had published. That does not prevent a collective of CS's from "persuading" a CO, through their log postings, that there is a problem that needs rectifying. Some may argue that this regime allows a warning message posted by a CS to be lost or ignored. I argue that this is as it should be. If only one of several CS's who has visited a cache perceives a problem, then it is likely that the problem exists only for that CS. On the other hand if several CS's remark on a similar problem then the argument that a problem exists becomes more powerful and in consequence is much more likely to result in appropriate remedial action. The greater the collective voice, the greater the power to effect change. For this reason I believe that it becomes the responsibility of each and every CS (YES that includes ME) to use the tools we already have available to us to report a perceived hazard, when such a hazard is noticed. Others following on on have an equal responsibility to provide their own warning when they agree with the first poster. With no others supporting the first it seems right and proper that the matter should simply die. In my view adding alternative warning systems would be unlikely to make a really significant improvement to our present system. However, I do NOT rule out the possibility that the present system may be capable of improvement in some, or even several, way(s). I sometimes struggled to find the precise information that I needed while researching the current system as I wrote this comment. If others have had a similar problem then perhaps it could be made more user friendly than it is. In particular this would aid the newer members of our fraternity.

I would like to add that due diligence on the part of the reporter should be taken when reporting caches based on their perceptions of adequate permission given. If you can't say for certain, save Groundspeak the headache and ask a few questions before reporting a cache based on permission. Basically, if you're unwilling to do the footwork then what is your motivation to report a cache based on that criteria....? I whole-heartedly agree with that!

Dude! Surely you aren't promoting something as silly as personal accountability as applied to geocaching... Are you? Just wait till the Bubble Wrap Police get hold of you. That's crazy talk, man! (See Jes, that's how it's done. Not judgin', just sayin') An interesting sense of humour!

It is with a great feeling of sadness for the relatives and friends of Willi that I read of his tragic death. Although I knew him not, I do know that the loss of a member of one's circle is always keenly felt. It is, however, heartening to see that his death has made some members of our Geocaching Community, of which he was part, stop to consider how similar tragic events can be mimimised in the future. Comments made in this forum have prompted me to consider again how I fit within this environment. Those comments have, for me, identified two key areas; namely legality and safety. In many of the comments in posts above these have tended to be dealt with together. While each may have some bearing on the other I believe they need to be addressed as separate issues. After all we could have legal and illegal caches where safey issues are likely to be relatively minimal (D1/T1) and legal and illegal caches where safety issues are absolutly vital (D5/T5); so I believe we need to separate the two. But first I look at the overall picture as I see it. The following comments are based on my understanding of the geocaching scene. I am happy to be corrected if my perception is flawed. We, the individual members, and collective sub-groups of members, within the world-wide geocaching community, set the standards for the community by the manner in which we conduct ourselves within that community. It is by our individual and collective actions and attitudes that our community as a whole will be judged by those outside our community. If I do not observe any code of conduct (written or otherwise) that the community sets for its members then my actions may well lead to that community being represented in an undesirable way. Fortunately, the converse also applies. My understanding of the structure of our world-wide community to is that we have: Cache Owners Members who VOLUNTARILY hide and maintain caches and publish the cache details so that others know of their existence and are provided with the opportunity to participate in the hobby activity we know as geocaching. Cache Seekers Members who CHOOSE to seek out the caches hidden by Cache Owners and who (hopefully) RELY ON THEIR OWN COMMON SENSE AND JUDGEMENT in all actions they take while carrying out the activity of geocaching. A facilitator An organistion (in our case Groundspeak) that provides a central point of contact through which Cache Owners are able to communicate information about their hidden caches to potential Cache Seekers. It is no accident that Cache Owners are first in the list above as our hobby was started by a cache owner who later was able to participate as a Cache Seeker when others got involved; and the facilitator came on the scene in third place as the need for such became apparent. I believe that each of these groups has certain obligations and have attempted to summarise (perhaps imperfectly) some of these below: Cache Owners need to truthfully represent their cache to the facilitator in strict accord with any publishing guidelines set by the facilitator so that when the cache is published Cache Seekers are not misled into believing a cache is other than what it actually is in terms of legality, safety, and any other relevant matter. To this end, any significant hazards need to be identified near the top of the cache page. Cache Seekers must TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY as well as considering the safety of others when seeking any cache whether Difficulty/Terrain category 1/1, 5/5, or anywhere between. This includes carrying out any additional research beyond the data on the cache page that may be necessary so that the seeker is as informed as possible about (a) the area into which they will be going and ( any specialist equipment and/or personell support that may be needed to complete the finding and logging of the cache as safely as possible. Additionally they must be prepared to communicate, in the most effective way possible, information about any discovered deficiency or inaccuracy in the provided cache information so that updated information is readily available to subsequent seekers. The facilitator primarily provides a listing service to convey information between cache owners and cache seekers and, to a lesser extent, vice-versa. Their function is NOT to regulate the activity. However, for their own legal protection they may be obliged to provide guidelines so that Cache Owners are clear as to the information they need to supply and Cache Seekers are better able to judge the relevance of information provided by the Cache Owners. (Those guidelines become part of the code of conduct within which I as a member of the community must work. – see the bolded portion of para 6 above) Additionally, the facilitator provides a free membership for cache owners and seekers and also, to help cover the cost of providing their service, a paid membership with additional member benefits. They also operate some geocaching-related business activities. Now I'll come back to the two issues I identified earlier. Legality: Our facilitator has provided guidelines which if correctly followed by Cache Owners mean that Cache Seekers can be assured that a cache that is published has been placed with the permission of the land owner, whether that cache is on public or private property. That assurance also extends to the legality of access to the cache site. If the Cache Owner has in any way what-so-ever mis-represented the legality of the permissions for cache placement, or regarding the access there-to, then I hold the cache owner responsible for that mis-representation – NOT the facilitator. As a Cache Seeker, if I become aware of such a mis-representation then I have a responsibility to the community to report the facts to both the owner and the facilitator so that appropriate corrective action may be taken. This may, but does not necessarily have to, mean that the cache is archived. Our facilitator has provided me with tools to do that so if I don't use them, I am at fault. (again: see the bolded protion of para 6 above) Safety: As a Cache Seeker I CHOOSE to pursue a cache. I AM RESPONSIBLE for the judgement calls I make in so doing. The ultimate responsibility is MINE if in that pursuit I take some action that gets me hurt (or worse). It was MY bad decision(s) or MY mistaken action(s) that got me into trouble. I AM THE ONE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN SAFETY and I also have a secondary responsiblility to any one in whose company I may be at the time. [Please Note that I cannot, and do not attempt to, speak for or in connection with Willi here – I simply state the case as I believe it applies to me. If it causes hurt to anyone I apologise as that is not my intention.] I guess what I'm saying here is that I believe that we each have a responsibility for safety; first to ourselves; and then to those around us. While this thinking can be extended to our everyday activity too, in the context of this forum it has definite application to our hobby. I would vigorously oppose, however, any suggestion that tried to resolve safety issues by restricting the choices that geocachers have to pursue legally placed caches of any D/T level. I endorse efforts made by Snoogans to bring the safety message forward. Our world-wide community has members of all ages; some with years of real-life-experience to guide them in their decision making; some with a very limited experience base. Any activity that is directed towards educating our less-safety-aware community members so that they can if they wish tackle a 5/5 cache safely and successfully gets a thumbs-up from me. In his initial post, veit asked: … … … how can we avoid this in the future? I do not believe that we can avoid serious incidents where risk may be involved except by preventing or seriously curtailing the activity. What I believe is that with appropriate collective action we may be able to significantly reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future. Three steps towards achieving this are, I believe: 1. As Cache Owners ensure that any cache we have published truly meets the Groundspeak guidelines, particularly with regard to legality, before it is submitted for publishing. 2. As Cache Seekers ensure that any cache that is found to fall short of those guidelines is brought to the attention of both the owner and our facilitator so that appropriate remedial action can occur. 3. Support, to the best of our abillity, any intitiative that is directed towards the safety awareness education of our less-experienced members when ever an opportunity presents itself to do so. I believe that these three steps could be the first steps in improving our image as an organisation and reducing the risk of serious incidents in the future and, in part at least, answer veit's initial question.

Im finding this quite a process compared with other sites!

I see too that it is now possible to enter Postcode for New Zealand and get a meaningful response. Haven't been able to do that before. Well done! And I quite like the new first page layout on GC.com. Also with the new arrangement one can simply Highlight the unwanted characters and type in the new without removing the GC so probably the best of both worlds now.

It seems that nobody had tried a second click --- the first used to eliminate the code except for the "GC" and jump the cursor to its left; The second used to jump the cursor back to the right of the "GC" ready to enter the number. Using that I never had a problem! Haven't used it in the last month so may have to change my habits.