taupan

That's true. And every risk one get's aware of should be better transported to others so that everone can profit from this. This might be better achievable by some extra warning stuff...

Thank you for your condolence! I don't know if you had the chance to follow the complete discussion. But what do you think about some extra possibility of posting warnings? I know, GS is not responsible, but is this a good idea to follow from your point of view?

I would argue that if 49 other people have found the cache and didn't feel the need to mention the warning then it really can't be that important. What if the warning is true in bad weather conditions (i.e. rain > slippery underground) and the last 49 finders reached the cache with sunshine? A warning doesn't has to apply every day to a specific cache!

I think you cannot compare cigarette warnings to those proposed here. The warnings posted on cigarette packs are general knowledge - every smoker knows this since these facts are known for a long time. In addition, smoking warnings apply to every cigarette. So smokers don't care about them... In the case of cache warnings, these new proposed warnings are not general warnings for all caches out there. The warnings are cache-specific. Thus, before reading them, you cannot know what the warning content will be for that specific cache you are looking for in the moment. Next thing is, the usual logs are not sufficient enough to post important warnings. No one reads all logs, if someone says this, he is lying. Imagine there are 100 logs and one important warning is 50 logs away: most wouldn't notice even if they read logs. With a special log type this can be different: you scroll down the cache description, you come to the beginning of the logs section, you see: 123 finds, 5 dnf, 10 notes, 3 warnings... 3 warnings? Hmm wait, shouldn't I click to see what is in those warnings??? I think I would like to know... If you don't like such a feature, just don't click to see the warnings, just ignore, it's up to everyone. Some might read them... And one key statement is: It's just wrong to say no one reads cache descriptions, no one reads logs. Most people I know do so. But as stated before, this doesn't mean to see all logs and to get every important information out of them. But if you see there are warnings... And one last point: some said they don't think people would use this feature. This is wrong. There are lot's of cachers out there who do post warnings in their logs, who care about others...

100% ACK! This is really not much work to add such important things! And I know what I'm saying as an IT specialist and software engineer.

Thanks to you Veit for already uploading the pictues. I also just wanted to do this after scanning the newspaper some minutes ago... As already mentioned, the whole community here is terribly shocked. Saturday - one day after the accident - there was an event in Dresden with nearly 300 people. We've made a minute of silence for Willi and it is impressive to see this enormous condolence here. Some words from me to the initial topic of Veit: Sure, everyone is responsible for their decisions, sure not every cacher clearly reads cache descriptions or logs. And yes, D, T, attributes and description already a good way to mention risks. BUT: 1. Everything the CO states in the listing is subjective from his point of view. 2. Even if you read logs, would you find every mentioned risk if there are dozens of logs? So what is the problem of some additional possibility to note warnings and extra risks? If someone doesn't want's to use this feature, just let it. But if you really want to tell other cachers important things, why not with an extra log type or something? If you could save one person in having a serious accident it should be worth doing it. Bad decisions happen. But decisions are usually made by knowing different facts about something. If there is one extra fact telling you about an extra danger or something, maybe you won't take the risk...