Jump to content

veit

Members
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by veit

  1. Well, yeah, I only read the two opening posts - the others had not been posted at the time. Oh, and I did read them in their entirety and found them to be on-topic for this thread, so I let GeoBain know. I don't understand why that other thread was locked, but then again I don't understand many of the things going on here.
  2. @GeoBain: I feel the post you linked to is absolutely on topic and am happily surprised that you are reconsidering the Warnings logtype :-)
  3. Absolutely. And also more reason to give us a "Warnings"-log type, so we can warn other cachers of dangers before a reviewer gets around to the queue some day. BTW, nothing wrong with that in my mind - after all they are volunteers. However, it is a problem in the entire setup of the process. 1 month is too long - GS should probably have a few people on hand who react quicker than that to NAs.
  4. @Snoogans: I don't feel like hitchhiking to Austria right now just to check out a cache that is obviously placed illegally ;-) @Sandy: as others have pointed out before, there was a NA log years back on this cache and the cacher who posted it was ridiculed. Other than that nothing happened. How you could have missed the discussion about this cache in this thread, but picked up on me posting "disparaging" comments about GS, or other miniscule problems in this thread...and even edited and deleted posts in the process is beyond me. Another suggestion: GS should hire maybe 5 people to simply go through ALL NA logs that were posted in the last years and do a quick review of the cache pages in question. Obviously the process of NA has not been working and if that's the road the community should take to get rid of "illegal" caches, GS as the listing service needs to make sure it is.
  5. Well, they made it sound like that in this thread, but in the end, obviously don't take any action once caches do get reported. I don't understand it at all.
  6. @Sandy: rather than threatening to close this thread, could you please either answer the suggestions that we have come up with in this thread yourself, or make sure they are answered by Groundspeak?! Thanks! Also, I truly believe that simply closing this thread might be the most stupid thing GS could do. Considering the low visibility and activity of this Forum it's very possible that a lot more ideas about how to improve the site and culture will come in in the future. You can simply edit posts that you deem to be "personal attacks". BTW, I'm shocked that Murpark cache is still online - so actually, even with NA logs, those caches are not being archived by Groundspeak. Why should the community report any of those caches then?
  7. Thanks a lot for this clarification, Sandy! While I personally disagree with some of your statements (mostly about not needing better tools to warn other cachers) I can understand why Groundspeak is falling back on this position and it's great to have it posted here openly and officially. It would be awesome if you could stick around a little bit and clear up some of the follow-up questions many of us probably have. For example, I am really interested to know how GS is handling the dilemma that was pointed out in this thread, that a large number (if not majority) of caches in Germany (and probably other countries) do not have permission from the land owner/manager (because it's impossible to get etc.). So if someone started sending emails to GS pointing out a large number of these caches - what exactly would happen? I simply see no solution to this dilemma, other than probably all of us simply pretending we don't see it. Other than that: what about global communication about safety issues (newsletter for example) and the Safety Forum Snoogans suggested?
  8. @Sandy: thanks for posting in this thread again, I really appreciate it. I really don't wanna lead private discussions with Groundspeak about this topic - it concerns the entire community. I do understand a lot of the pressures of managing a large community and trying to steer a good course among a lot of differing opinions. That's why I asked you to post openly - it simply would be the worst course of action for Groundspeak to simply ignore what happened and not use the collective wisdom of the community trying to find ways to try to prevent this from happening again, but rather wish the topic goes away or even put pressure on those who feel something needs to be done (I did feel pressured). However, please also do us the courtesy to answer the points raised in this thread - in the large majority we did not ask for further amendments to the guidelines. There are simply some doubts as to whether Groundspeak is actually enforcing the "no caches on property without the owner's agreement" ("illegal caches") point, or will do so in the future. And then there were a lot of suggestions for feature improvements to the site (anonymous reporting of caches, warnings log...) that have nothning to do with the guidelines and I for one would like an official response as to which will be implemented and if not, why not. P.S.: I hereby grant you permission to post the messages I sent you in this thread where they really belong.
  9. @Snoogans: I'm choosing this Forum/route because I'd like to see the most global and effective solutions applied. I agree that education about safety can be well done on a local level/in Forums. But even here, Groundspeak controls most of the global communication channels that could also be used to educate more cachers about safety. As to site features (anonymous cache reporting, warning-log type...), those only Groundspeak can implement. I thought they would carefully monitor such a thread and then quickly take the best solutions and implement them (or at least announce why they don't like some of the suggestions), but the more time passes the more I'm getting the impression that they are really just sticking their heads into the sand and think that nothing has to change and they don't even really have to communicate. That's not gonna work.
  10. They were not private emails, they were sent through this site and in an official function by her. Anyway, I didn't post the message content, and the fact that Groundspeak is trying to put pressure on me behind the scenes, but refusing to communicate with the community in the open is disturbing and relevant to the thread.
  11. Hi guys, I am glad the discussion is still going. I have kept an eye on the thread while emotionally disconnecting from it for a while. I hope that in the next few days/weeks I'll find the time to summarize the ideas we have come up with here in a nice little doc/call to action and post them in a public place where others can extend it. However, something rather weird seems to be going on behind the scenes and I will post this here. Sandy, the official Groundspeak rep who posted here before sent me a private message and accused me of having posted "disparaging comments about Groundspeak", and asking if I was still unclear about GS' stance on the matter. I answered that yes, and asked her to please clear up the matter in the thread. To which she just replied and told me they won't do that, since it would "add fuel to the fire". My feeling is that she would like me/us to shut up and move on. I'm deeply disappointed by this kind of behaviour from Groundspeak - if you want to discuss with us, Sandy, or have anything substantial to add, please do so in the open. Even if it's just a statement that you believe everything is fine and nothing needs to change. Anything is better than putting pressure on people who raise an issue behind the scenes.
  12. Hi guys, I know I said I didnt want to post for a while, but I can't stop thinking about this, and just had another idea that I want to get out there for others to consider. First a quick note - I realize that saying I will bring media attention to this issue makes me hugely unpopular here. It's the ultima ratio. I am not experienced enough to know, how decisions are made within geocaching normally/how community consensus is built. So far I've only seen this Forum really, some local groups, and getsatisfaction that seems to have been shut down. To me it's clear that Groundspeak completely controls the decision making and communication process. So this thread is a tool to collect ideas, get a lot of different opinions on what can be done, alert those very few that are reading here (in relation to all geocachers) of ideas what can be done (it certainly worked for me, I see illegally placed caches much different now than a week ago and am taking local action). But in the end, it might not put enough pressure on Groundspeak to act (while some disagree that they should act at all, a lot of ideas in this thread need their action, be it features on the site or communication to all geocachers). So if the pressure of the event itself, and our voices here is not enough to get them to act, again, I am not afraid to bring in outside pressure. I've seen it work in other communities, and if nothing happens here in a reasonable time frame, it might be the only thing that helps here. My new idea: a new log type "too risky for me" (TRFM). Same result as "found": it's filtered out from searches, on the map maybe marked with a big red X, or R, or little red devil, or some other nice icon. A lot different from DNF: you will not see it as a cache that you simply haven't found anymore, it won't tempt you in the same way on a map. Different from "ignore" as well - that feature, only a minority of members can use (paying ones) - and especially newer cachers who might be eager to follow in the footsteps of those "cool guys" usually are not. Also different in that there actually is no log type associated with "ignore"...you do it silently. I think this TRFM log would address a number of issues we have raised in this thread. First of all, on such risky caches we would not only see all those glowing logs of people who have done the cache. Who climbed that tree without equipment, who reached into that pole with the wiring, who did other things more risk averse people might deem too risky. It would clearly communicate: yes, you are free to take risks when geocaching, but I am also free to take a look at that cache high up in the tree, walk away, but still log a logtype that is somehow meaningful in stats and features on the site. I think it's another small puzzle piece in starting to change the culture. Personally, I can think of a number of caches that I did, where having this log type would probably have stopped me. I think this log type gives a voice to a silent majority in geocaching who are NOT proponents of the "higher, riskier, more dangerous" attitude. One that is probably much more prevalent with the most active cachers (need more, new kicks) - who also often are some sort of role models, at least locally. Yes, a cache with a lot of TRFM logs would probably also attract thrill seekers. But those cannot be stopped anyway, they will find their risky kick with that cache or elsewhere - or they might even be the best equipped, best trained, most careful ones. But I venture to say that the huge majority of geocachers are not expert climbers, divers etc., and putting risky geocaches in front of them whenever they use the site, eventually will get some of them to give in to that feeling of "argh, I want that smiley" and take risks that are on calm, rational view, not worth it. If you are sitting at home reading a description, or even more importantly, at the cache location, just knowing that you have that outlet - that you can simply log "too risky for me" and be done with it, forever (in geocaching terms), and will be in company with tons of other likeminded cachers, might just stop some of us from taking too high a risk and again, reduce accidents and deaths in the long run. Once more, have a Merry Christmas everyone, I hope I can stop thinking about this for a while now and get some sleep (and yes, Snoogans, I am sleep deprived )
  13. The crazy realization that the post by Sandy might have been nothing but communication (I'm not sure, I hope not, but I'm tired of getting deeper and deeper into Groundspeak-speak or -politics than I already have) just drove me to make a cut. It's been great fun discussing with you all here, I am very glad we've come this far. This thread has taken a ton of my time in the last days and I can't invest that much anymore - after all it's Christmas ;-) I feel that together we have put a great deal of energy and thoughts into collecting ideas for the community and for Groundspeak what can be done, and it's now time for action. I hope more, and even better ideas will pop up in this thread from time to time - or even better, that Snoogans is successful creating the Safety category in the Forum and that the discussion will be taken to new levels there. Don't take me wrong - I don't want this thread to die or be closed, and I will check in from time to time and am pretty sure others will help keep it alive....just personally it's time to step aside for a while. I am still convinced that change is due and needed on the site and in the community, but now the ball is clearly in Groundspeak's court. I feel we've exhausted the communication channels available to us (Forum, email contact, Founder). I can now spend my time more efficiently by laying low for a week or two and by giving Groundspeak a bit of time to get their act together, rather than examining every little word that might come from an employee or a volunteer. If nothing happens after that I will use different communication channels and get national media in Groundspeak's main markets (surely Germany+US, maybe a few others) involved. It won't be hard, just a few emails to the right editors. Sticking the head into the sand or just continuing business as usual is not an option in this case. Willi died while geocaching and while we may never know how much of it was pure chance and how much could have been prevented, it simply sucks that he can't celebrate this Christmas with his family. Enjoy Christmas with the people you love! Warm greetings from Germany, Veit
  14. Don't be so sure about that. Hm...you might be right, but that would be the absolute summit of cynicism by Groundspeak, since he posted in this thread and was aware of the discussion that went on about this. And it can easily be cleared up. I just read/reread her statement again. 1. What action? I assume a different action than the one for caches that do meet the guidelines, but are "just" deemed dangerous that you described in your first paragraph (contact owner, ask to amend listing). I assumed immediate archiving, but now I'm not so sure anymore. 2. That means if any cacher reports a cache and with some sort of evidence/credibility disputes the fact that it's placed with the landowner's permission, it will be immediately archived, right? Ok, you know what, this is messing with my brain. Sandy/Groundspeak - give us a clear answer please. Do you want the community to start reporting "illegally placed" caches right now and start archiving them right now, or not?
  15. Ummm, it's just my opinion, but that's not a very good idea at this point if ever. It's an issue that needs to be done outside an open forum. I would rather bring rogue hiders around to posting caches within the guidelines quietly rather than causing bad blood and stigmatizing someone that could have easily just been educated to do it the right way. True. I apologize. I just thought we were through with this issue in this thread and wanted to "externalize" the demonstration of single caches. But you are right - basically, there's not much to discuss, if you see a cache that most likely is illegally placed (and might be dangerous), just report it to Groundspeak if you feel that's the right thing to do. Not much more to say, really. Sorry about it, I was just sitting here myself thinking how to tackle that issue locally, whether I should send those owners (which I know/have had contact with) emails right now and discuss the issue with them...or avoid direct confrontation and just use the path Groundspeak has opened up. I agree that pointing out and potentially vilifying someone in an open Forum for doing something that has long been a very much accepted highly praised local practice was a stupid idea of me.
  16. BTW, here's a suggestion: could someone open a thread simply for pointing out caches that probably are "illegally placed"? That way those who think this is the best solution have a place to collect and evaluate them and track Groundspeak's progress in archiving them. I'm pretty sure it can be fun tracking them down, give the thread a catchy title and I'm sure you'll have an evergreen Forum thread in no time ;-) I don't wanna be the OP for that one, since I wanna continue to live a happy life here in Germany ;-) And in this thread we can continue to discuss the other ideas that have been been proposed. We are through with the issue of "illegal caches" - whether we agree or not, Groundspeak has made it clear that the archive hammer is dropping if just one cacher reports a cache he deems dangerous that is illegally placed.
  17. Don't count on it. It still takes someone such as yourself to initiate the process. You just stated that you will report the few cache you know about. But someone will need to report the others before action is taken. I don't see Groundspeak implemented the carpet bombing database query you suggested earlier. Action will be likely taken on a cache by cache basis as reports are logged. Yes, but that's fine I think. It now only takes a handful of people, or even just one determined individual that thinks that all such caches should be gone - anyone can search for these kinds of caches on the site. And - to me more importantly - it also gives clear responsability to everyone of us as a finder to take action - if need by anonymously - when we get to a cache that is clearly off-limits and possibly dangerous. Noone can hide behind the local peer-pressure-argument anymore. Of course, as long as this is communicated in a good way by Groundspeak - so far basically only those of us who have read Sandy's statement here are aware of it. That has to happen. Please include this in your next newsletter! But I think if this kind of policy had been in place, one of the 34 finders before Willi, or maybe even just one looking at the listing, while not daring to post a NA publically, might have simply dropped a line to Groundspeak. It quite decisively lowers that barrier. Now I just hope I didn't completely misunderstand Sandy and they take the easy route and simple forward such complaints to the local reviewer...
  18. Just a quick heads up that Sandy also replied to me personally as well (to the email I had sent to contact@geocaching.com as suggested in this thread). I am glad communication is starting, and I'm happy to hear that they are in touch with Willi's family. However, this can only be the beginning. So far Sandy only addressed one of the concerns we had raised in this thread: the inability/unwillingness of local reviewers to archive "illegally placed" caches, and invited us to go straight over their heads and contact Groundspeak directly, where they will be archived. I don't know much about the dynamics of Groundspeak as a company and their volunteer reviewers, if they will appreciate this or not, but I think it is good that we can go straight to them with this now. It will avoid all the bad dynamics around people who post NA and fellow local cachers, and effectively is very similar to the anonymous report button suggested in the thread. At least two caches were pointed out here - I just checked and they were still online. From now on Groundspeak's efficiency will be judged how quickly they act on such notices. It's also clear that this is the end of "illegally placed" caches. Because basically just one cacher has to complain about one, and that's it. I can imagine that hardly anyone will keep placing them if they are doomed to disappear quickly. Personally, I will report a few caches I know. I strongly suggest Groundspeak accompany this with a good communications strategy, maybe a partnership with urban exploration groups, or advice to cachers that they CAN place their caches next to that exciting location if they want to show it, but not inside. I'm glad we're moving forward, Sandy, please also address the other suggestions made in this thread.
  19. I decided to not read too much into Jeremy's unfortunate and insensitive Facebook/Twitter post, and went ahead and sent him a personal message (through your FB and gc-Profiles, in case you missed it, Jeremy). I hope he will take this issue up personally, I've seen another similar situation play out in a different community this year where the founders first stuck their heads into the sand and then came out blazing with a ton of new safety features, awareness campaigns. I hope Groundspeak does the same. As to those insisting again and again that only those who start posting NA logs right now be allowed to discuss here further, please stop. I'm also not telling you in every post that you should post red warnings on any cache that you might have done that might have some sort of danger for other cachers right now. We are here to collect ideas, so please try to do your part to come up with new ones, or leave it at that if that's all you can come up with.
  20. Some random thoughts - not really in the flow of the current conversation, but I'm thinking of this constantly now, so thought I'd add what crossed my mind: - a local cacher told me in a private email yesterday that he went back to the site of the accident to retrieve the actual cache a couple of nights ago (he knew it was still there because he had found the cache the night after Willi died - unknowingly of what had happened). Believe it or not, the cache was still in place a week after this happened. I don't know what or if this says anything about the attitude of police/city. I just found it unbelievable, especially after the picture of the actual logbook had been in the paper already. He posted this info publically as a note to the cache page now, so thought I'd share it for those who want updates (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=a9377594-fb5c-4218-98d0-8f5c49a85673) - culture of safety: how do we expect Owners, especially less-experienced ones, to make the right choices, if this is the "Geocache of the Week": http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/06/the-rock-gc1ej43-the-geocache-of-the-week-june-13-2011/ - that one sentence on the blog page just made my blood chill a little bit: "Geocachers step up to the challenge by stepping on the overgrown deck of an abandoned and crumbling bridge." Discovered this by pure chance clicking a bit around the gc-FB-page. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the cache, I couldn't even find any info on who owns this bridge today (permission issue), don't know if it matters. The cache is hugely popular, featured by Groundspeak, and personally, I can absolutely understand why some owner would hardly give a second thought to placing a cache on a on first view much less dangerous bridge. - I was just about to send Jeremy a direct message, so checked out his Facebook page. His second to last update from Tuesday made me cringe and stopped me dead in my tracks from writing him. "My condolences to Norway for their butter shortage". Read it to believe it. (https://www.facebook.com/jeremyirish/posts/10150454514652771) It's maybe just a bad coincidence (although I doubt he didnt hear of the accident before Tuesday). That it's still there, and not an official word from Groundspeak about the tragedy so far is unacceptable. He is the "President and CEO at Groundspeak" and supposedly the leader of our community. I wanted to appeal to him to act quickly from founder to founder, but I'm starting to get a really bad gut feeling about the guy (I was critical of Groundspeak before because some of the business practices, but this is a totally different level, you just don't post condolences about butter prices a few days after someone died pursuing the hobby you helped create).
  21. Dear John, I would really appreciate if you could edit your post. It's the first time I am truly offended in this entire thread. I didn't know this cache even existed, I had not been there, I came here to find a solution to prevent this in the future and have spent countless hours trying to get the best ideas out there. Suggesting I could have done anyhing to prevent Willi's death is outrageous. Your post ist tasteless, and quite frankly a disgrace to this usually very respectful thread.
  22. I didnt see anyone jumping anyone. I think most of us expressed gratitude that they took time to post and bring in more facts and opionions. I think most of us are also aware of the fact that the people who can actually take decisions have not posted here. We are waiting for that (not necessarily post in this thread, but declare publically how Groundspeak as the platform provider for our community is going to address this). It's ok to take some time to think things through, but in the end, Groundspeak will have to react. Who is taking ultimate decisions there anyway - only Jeremy, is he the boss? So yes, I for one absolutely appreciate volunteers like Sandy and Keystone taking the time to explain some of their thoughts to us normal community members here. However, I'd appreciate it even more if they started pressuring Jeremy or whoever calls the shots behind the scenes to start acting and addressing this issue (and some part of me still hopes that that big smart team is still huddling together in Seattle right now and will blow us all away with their well-thought plan and response).
  23. Very interesting, thank you for explaining this (as I said, I hope I never have to do your job). I think I'm gonna sleep on this one, because I'm still kind of shocked, by this straightforward "GS doesn't deal with safety at all"-statement. It's interesting to hear how you address the issue anyway, but that your hands are ultimately tied when it comes to safety. I really don't know what to think about it right now - if GS really stands by that policy, which also means reviewers are completely out of the picture, it's really up to only cachers and owners to police and warn each other, and I truly hope GS will give us better tools to do so.
  24. To the contrary, the word "safety" appears nowhere in the listing guidelines. Groundspeak is a listing service, not an insurer or guarantor of safety. Instead, as a listing service, Groundspeak focuses on compliance with all applicable laws and land manager policies, and the concept of adequate permission. If a land manager has a safety concern about a cache, it ought to be addressed during the permission process. If the unsafe location is on public property, then that community has or could have laws in place that are designed to prevent unsafe behavior. A good example of the common misperception that the listing guidelines regulate "safety" is the guideline about caches near railroad tracks. That guideline, in fact, arose because of trespassing concerns. That's a compliance with laws issue. One reason for the law may be the railroad's inherent dangers, but the reason for the guideline itself is not safety. It's an important distinction. Let governmental bodies and land managers regulate safety. It's what they're good at. Let Groundspeak and its reviewer team regulate cache listings. It's what they're good at. First, let me thank you again for stepping in here and posting - even though you are a volunteer, it does sound like a general Groundspeak guideline/statement. I've read it several times just to wrap my head around it. Do I understand it right, that basically, reviewers/GS never look at safety? So if I notice a safety problem with a cache (just for arguments' sake, say, a publically accessible bridge staircase that isn't used much, has a gaping hole in the middle, needs to be crossed to get to a cache and the owner doesn't mention it clearly in the cache description...to which I first try to get him to post a warning, and then, after no reaction post a NA)...nothing would happen? In this case, we - as the community - really need better tools to warn each other of any safety related issues with caches. Now. Please! [edited to make clear I'm not talking about the current case]
  25. Thank you very much for this additional info! I also agree that reviewers should hardly ever be blamed - they have a very tough job, are probably always torn between Groundspeak and local community, and probably get to hear all kinds of crazy stuff if people find out who they are and don't like some of their decisions. And after all, they are volunteers. Don't envy them at all. Keystone, you said the German reviewer team did address those "Lost Places", but you don't wanna summarize their efforts. I just remembered that they have a website and went looking there. There actually is a blog post from November (http://www.gc-reviewer.de/das-verstecken-von-geocaches-an-vergessenen-orten-lost-places/) that leads to a much more extensive page on the Groundspeak Wiki (I didnt even know such a thing existed! Wow!) - https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Germany#Das%20Verstecken%20von%20Geocaches%20auf%20Lost%20Places. Very interesting read, it basically addresses only the issue of when a place is illegal, that people can get caught etc. It does not address safety at all (quite understandably, but also a very good illustration of the lacking focus on safety in geocaching thus far). It also is worded quite carefully/legally, and doesnt give any impression that the "archive hammer" that has been mentioned in this thread is gonna drop soon - eg., no call to action to local cachers to please report caches in such locations via NA. That was my impression. Anyway, I think it's really too heavy a burden for reviewers to decide on this very tricky and debated issue - this is a decision that has to come from the very top so the reviewers and any local cachers can point to Groundspeak - a blog post, mail, whatever - stating clearly and in absolutely uncertain terms: "the time of places in illegal locations is over".
×
×
  • Create New...