After tragic death of experienced geocacher - what needs to change?

[+B+L]

the thread probably ran it's course about half way through the second page.

It is sad that this thread has its origins in a tragic event, but it has sparked one of the more thoughtful conversations that I've seen on these boards. Had this thread run its course, as you claim, we would have missed the comments by its most intriguing participant, Otis.Grace. Why is there always a rush in these forums to stifle threads instead of allowing the conversation ebb and flow as it will?

[+GeoBain]

This story is heartbreaking, it is a clear example of how we failed as an entire community, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that no national media has taken up this story yet.

 

No we haven't failed as an entire community.

 

Your local community has failed.

 

Over here, we actually believe following local laws is a good thing. If a reviewer knows of such issues during the review process, they are dealt with.

 

If a problematic cache slips through, there are enough law abiding geocachers such that there is a high probability that caches requiring you to break the law will be reported. Once reported, most reviewers will take appropriate action.

 

I really don't think the global system is broken. Therefore, we don't need a global fix.

 

You really should put the same amount of passion and energy into changing the hearts and minds of your local geocachers. And if you are really seeing reviewers ignoring NA logs when someone does bother to post them, then you should use that same passion and energy to get Groundspeak to replace those reviewers.

[+briansnat]

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

 

It turns out that it is trivial to reduce the number of avoidable geocaching deaths to zero. Just ban geocaching.

 

Every human activity carries risks with it. Reducing needless deaths is important, but safety always comes at a cost. Those who claim safety can be improved for zero cost are either ignorant or lying. It is a mathematical fact that the only way to bring the number of deaths from an activity to zero is to not do the activity.

 

That's why it is important to not implement new safety features based on what we think will make things safer. It is far preferable to use techniques that have been proven to improve safety. Your call for a new log type, for example, comes from an emotional need to do something, but I doubt it would have a measurable impact on safety.

 

Perhaps the biggest cost of an over-emphasis on safety at all costs is that geocaching would lose its essential nature. Part of the allure, at least for me, is the promise of adventure and a little bit of danger. That's why geocaching.com has wisely chosen to leave it up to the individual cacher to use his or her judgment to evaluate the risk level they find appropriate once on-site.

 

Fizzy is right on the money again.

[+Snoogans]

This story is heartbreaking, it is a clear example of how we failed as an entire community, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that no national media has taken up this story yet.

 

No we haven't failed as an entire community.

 

Your local community has failed.

 

All for one and one for all. We are all geocachers. Please quit assigning blame.

 

I really don't think the global system is broken. Therefore, we don't need a global fix.

 

We don't need a global fix.... Fix implying the system is broken.... I don't believe the system is broken either.... However, I believe that an improvement in the global safety culture of geocaching IS in order.

 

It's a fact that there were at least 36 chances to avoid Willi's death. Does anyone dispute that?

 

An improvement is not needed if you truly believe that it was just Willi's time to die and this fatal accident was unpreventable.

 

Now let's see a show of hands from those that don't think this geocaching death could have been prevented...

[+baloo&bd]

Let's see if we can move this on: I think we've discussed the issue of illegally placed caches sufficiently. They do exist, and even though there are wildly differing opinions whether banning them from the platform would have prevented this death and is the right step to take in light of this tragedy, the entity that has to make this call is Groundspeak, not us.

 

And I would like to hear from them soon. I started this thread out of shock, out of feeling the urge "to do something", out of human compassion - I don't want any family having to go through what Willi's family is going through now, if we can prevent it. In this thread, we have given plenty of suggestions what could be done. I absolutely hope that there is an entire team huddling together in Seattle right now, throwing around thoughts, ideas, monitoring this thread. And that they start deciding and communicating soon. Actually, I hope they had some kind of plan in the drawers already for such a situation, and I hope that "just sit it out" is not that plan.

 

Someone just died while geocaching, and while this thread has brought out tons of differing opinions as to which parts in the process led to the death, one thing is clear: at least some of us believe this death could have been prevented and similar deaths can be prevented in the future, and that one of the parties that needs to act is Groundspeak. Those voices are not gonna go away, in fact every day that passes by increases the risk that this thing is gonna blow up big time - I have mentioned media before, and I think we're all aware what the result might be if issues like the one we discussed in this thread are compressed to a few lines in newspapers. This story is heartbreaking, it is a clear example of how we failed as an entire community, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that no national media has taken up this story yet. It's just a matter of time. Groundspeak needs to get it's act together for when that happens.

 

What I'm trying to say is: please, please, please, Seattle, don't put your heads into the sand. Deal with the safety issue right now, even if it might mean overtime or waking the boss.

 

So besides collecting ideas what could be done I'd like to shift the focus of the thread on how to get them heard, and at least get a thumbs up or down on them from Groundspeak. Could someone please shed some light on how decisionmaking within Groundspeak usually works?

 

While I don't think it will get them to respond, maybe letting them know what the safety issue they have to deal with might help. They are not mind readers and to this point you have not mentioned any.

[+baloo&bd]

 

Now let's see a show of hands from those that don't think this geocaching death could have been prevented...

 

My hands not up. I agree with you. The local community most definitely dropped the ball on this one.

Edited December 22, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+tomfuller & Quill]

So why don't we look at avoidable deaths and all do our best to bring that rate down to 0.

 

It turns out that it is trivial to reduce the number of avoidable geocaching deaths to zero. Just ban geocaching.

 

Every human activity carries risks with it. Reducing needless deaths is important, but safety always comes at a cost. Those who claim safety can be improved for zero cost are either ignorant or lying. It is a mathematical fact that the only way to bring the number of deaths from an activity to zero is to not do the activity.

 

That's why it is important to not implement new safety features based on what we think will make things safer. It is far preferable to use techniques that have been proven to improve safety. Your call for a new log type, for example, comes from an emotional need to do something, but I doubt it would have a measurable impact on safety.

 

Perhaps the biggest cost of an over-emphasis on safety at all costs is that geocaching would lose its essential nature. Part of the allure, at least for me, is the promise of adventure and a little bit of danger. That's why geocaching.com has wisely chosen to leave it up to the individual cacher to use his or her judgment to evaluate the risk level they find appropriate once on-site.

 

Fizzy is right on the money again.

+1

Of the 19 terrain 5 caches I have done, I was in quite a few dangerous places all by myself. There are many places that I would never go by myself or at night. More than once I have seen cougar tracks in the snow while geocaching. The riskiest caches IMHO are the 1.5 terrain caches that have bees or a poisonous snake or scorpion behind them. A cache hider can include a warning on the page but has no way of knowing what some newby geocacher will do trying to get the cache.

When I see the loose rock and the skull and crossbones attributes I know what to expect.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are plenty of dangerous caches. When seeking them, most people are aware of the risks and take extra caution.

 

This cache was in an illegal area. Willi had to go at night, as not to be seen. He fell through a large, gaping hole that would have been obvious during the day, or if he'd been using a flashlight. The fact that it was illegal directly contributed to his death.

The fact that there are plenty others like it, and that they were published on the site, enabled the CO to hide it. Looking at the pages it's rather obvious that TPTB knew that it was illegal. The question is why were these published?

 

If someone wants to take a chance and do that type of behavior on their own, that's fine. However, publishing illegal caches on the site puts all of the legal ones at risk. When a death occurs, people take notice and see that geocachers are openly defying the law, and it creates obstacles for the legal hides. Thousand of hours spent creating legal geocaches are at risk of getting archived if certain land managers impression is that the site if full of unsupervised delinquents. Trespassing, property damage, risky and stupid behavior...

 

Illegal activity and unsafe activities go hand in hand. People are going to get killed doing legal caching, and there is nothing that can be done about it. If it happens during illegal activities it is more likely to occur and puts the entire game to shame. It's not mentioned in "Geocaching in the News" because it is embarrassing and shameful.

[+cx1]

 

 

Now let's see a show of hands from those that don't think this geocaching death could have been prevented...

Of course this death could have been prevented. Do you honestly think anyone would dispute that? Simply not caching that night could have prevented it.

 

It is the purposed solutions that are the issue.

 

Clearly there are already many systems in place on the Groundspeak platform to address safety issues.

 

Clearly these systems were not utilized to their full potential in this case.

 

So the real issue becomes why were these systems not used. Are they too complex? Would a simpler more user-friendly system be an improvement? Would any additional systems also be under-used? Would additional systems create issues in other areas?

 

All of that needs to be addressed apart from the emotional issues of this particular incident. And would probably be better served in a thread dedicated to just that. But since we are already here...

 

Personally I like the concept of a warning log. It is simple, it would easily (within reason) fit into the current system structure and could provide a benefit at a very low cost.

 

However I also think that there is already a problem with the current log system and unless that is addressed then any new log types will suffer from under-use for the same reason.

 

The problem is the lack of an ability to easily sort which logs you are viewing. Having a new warning log would be great, having to scroll through 85 non-warning logs to find them is silly. Why not be able to click on the warning log icon at the top of the list of logs and instantly have all those type logs be at the top?

 

Would a warning log have prevented this particular incident? Hard to determine but I honestly doubt it. But I do think it could help reduce future injuries which is really all we can hope to accomplish at this point.

[+CanadianRockies]

So besides collecting ideas what could be done I'd like to shift the focus of the thread on how to get them heard, and at least get a thumbs up or down on them from Groundspeak. Could someone please shed some light on how decisionmaking within Groundspeak usually works?

Groundspeak usually keeps details of their future plans relatively private and releases information around the time they put those plans into practice. You can send them an email at contact@geocaching.com to see if they are willing to make a public statement beyond what already has appeared on this thread.

 

Meanwhile, some actions can occur immediately. Perhaps reviewers can exercise more care to avoid publishing caches that are likely placed in illegal locations. If an illegally placed cache does get published, then geocachers can notify the reviewers about the problems with those caches. If the reviewers ignore those concerns, then the geocachers can appeal the reviewer decisions to Groundspeak. Cache owners can add warnings, attributes, and better ratings to their listing pages, when appropriate. Finders can add warnings in their logs, when appropriate.

Edited December 23, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[veit]

 

Personally I like the concept of a warning log. It is simple, it would easily (within reason) fit into the current system structure and could provide a benefit at a very low cost.

 

However I also think that there is already a problem with the current log system and unless that is addressed then any new log types will suffer from under-use for the same reason.

 

The problem is the lack of an ability to easily sort which logs you are viewing. Having a new warning log would be great, having to scroll through 85 non-warning logs to find them is silly. Why not be able to click on the warning log icon at the top of the list of logs and instantly have all those type logs be at the top?

 

Would a warning log have prevented this particular incident? Hard to determine but I honestly doubt it. But I do think it could help reduce future injuries which is really all we can hope to accomplish at this point.

 

Oh, yes, maybe I only thought of that logtype because I can quickly sort logs by type by clicking on the icons and/or using a dropdown. Using a greasemonkey script (for Firefox) called GcFilterLogs. I've had it so long that I forgot that it's not part of the native gc-site...but it's a feature that would certainly be not that difficult to implement and would help not only with new Warnings logs, but also of course to quickly see DNFs or any other logtype you might be interested in. I do think however, that warnings logs should be displayed right on top/ideally be part of the cache description automatically. But that's smaller technicality - anything that helps warn others of dangers more efficiently that currently possible I would love.

Edited December 23, 2011 by veit

[veit]

The fact that there are plenty others like it, and that they were published on the site, enabled the CO to hide it. Looking at the pages it's rather obvious that TPTB knew that it was illegal. The question is why were these published?

 

If someone wants to take a chance and do that type of behavior on their own, that's fine. However, publishing illegal caches on the site puts all of the legal ones at risk. When a death occurs, people take notice and see that geocachers are openly defying the law, and it creates obstacles for the legal hides. Thousand of hours spent creating legal geocaches are at risk of getting archived if certain land managers impression is that the site if full of unsupervised delinquents. Trespassing, property damage, risky and stupid behavior...

 

Illegal activity and unsafe activities go hand in hand. People are going to get killed doing legal caching, and there is nothing that can be done about it. If it happens during illegal activities it is more likely to occur and puts the entire game to shame. It's not mentioned in "Geocaching in the News" because it is embarrassing and shameful.

 

I almost pains me to say this, but I almost fully agree with you on this one. While it is a completely different angle than what this thread is about (avoiding further accidents), I do also believe that hiding caches in clearly illegal places can put geocaching as a whole in a bad light, especially if people take notice because something bad happens.

[veit]

So besides collecting ideas what could be done I'd like to shift the focus of the thread on how to get them heard, and at least get a thumbs up or down on them from Groundspeak. Could someone please shed some light on how decisionmaking within Groundspeak usually works?

Groundspeak usually keeps details of their future plans relatively private and releases information around the time they put those plans into practice. You can send them an email at contact@geocaching.com to see if they are willing to make a public statement beyond what already has appeared on this thread.

 

Ok, thanks for that little push - I just sent this email to them:

 

Hi Groundspeak-Team,

 

I am sure you are aware of the terrible tragedy here in Germany last week. I'd like to ask you kindly to please post an update on any thoughts and plans you might have that could help prevent something from this happening ever again.

 

We have been collecting ideas in this Forum thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203, official participation would be very welcome, but even better would be some kind of public statement to the general geocaching community what actions and improvements to the site (if any) you are planning.

 

Thanks and greetings from the wonderful city of Dresden, Germany,

 

Veit

[veit]

Small updates to the "illegal locations" suggestions and the warnings log type.

 

List of suggestions for changes to the geocaching features/culture to prevent more injuries or deaths from happening

 

- every individual cacher should be more aware of the risks he is taking. Ultimately it is his or her responsability if he goes for a cache. There have been suggestions how this general awareness can be heightened: a new Forum category Safety (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287308), as well as a global communication campaign by the platform.

- generally place more emphasis in the community on safety rather than on find-counts (here we can all play our part, but again, global communication might help/nurture such a culture change). This includes making sure cachers don't get ridiculed if they post valid safety concerns in logs.

- place more emphasis on safety rather than avoidance of being seen by muggles (for fear of them calling authorities or stealing caches). Plastic containers can be replaced, lifes cannot.

- caches not to be placed in "illegal locations". The many existing ones to be archived. This can be achieved by Groundspeak on a global scale (database query, mail to all reviewers to take action) and on a local scale (encouraging everyone to use NA logs on existing caches). It can also be achieved by non-local geocachers posting NA logs if they become aware of illegal or dangerous caches, although there is debate whether this is seen as interference from afar and might offend local communities. Existing caches could be placed just outside of those "illegal locations" and die-hard fans of these types of caches could be pointed to other communities specializing in Urban Exploration. Added benefit: illegal locations cast a bad light on all geocachers when cachers get caught or accidents happen.

- improvements to the treatment of NA logs by reviewers (example was the case of a dangerous cache in Austria that has had a NA log since 2009 without anything happening other than the poster being ridiculed). More oversight/support by GS if local reviewers are unable/unwilling to archive caches due to peer pressure.

- making NA logs anonymous and undeletable by CO (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4926235)

- cachers to have better tools to warn other cachers of dangers than the currently existing mix of cache description and attributes by CO, and normal logs+NM/NA logs+emails to reviewers+GS by finders.

- one such tool: a new Warnings logtype (sortable, or even included in the cache description). Or a wiki-like editable warnings section where any cacher can point out dangers.

- an anonymous "report cache" button for every cache to circumvent local peer pressure

- owners to be encouraged to think twice about possible dangers with their cache when publishing a cache and to correctly list those (even if it means spoilering). All current COs could be sent an email by GS to revisit their cache pages and update them about dangers (something that has already happened locally, I'm starting to see caches being archived and updated). Including safety in the main cache guidelines (along the lines of "Don't lead cachers into harms way. If there are any dangers, describe them!") (http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx).

- give cachers better tools to meet at a cache so they are not there alone (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&view=findpost&p=4924638)

 

Let me know what I missed and I'll add it.

Edited December 23, 2011 by veit

[+GeoBain]

This story is heartbreaking, it is a clear example of how we failed as an entire community, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that no national media has taken up this story yet.

 

No we haven't failed as an entire community.

 

Your local community has failed.

 

All for one and one for all. We are all geocachers. Please quit assigning blame.

 

Excuse me, but I believe if there was any blame assigned, it was veit doing the assigning.

 

As I do not believe it is the global community that has failed, I will indeed state unabashfully that it is the local community that has failed.

Edited December 23, 2011 by GeoBain

[+GeoBain]

I really don't think the global system is broken. Therefore, we don't need a global fix.

 

We don't need a global fix.... Fix implying the system is broken.... I don't believe the system is broken either.... However, I believe that an improvement in the global safety culture of geocaching IS in order.

 

It's a fact that there were at least 36 chances to avoid Willi's death. Does anyone dispute that?

 

An improvement is not needed if you truly believe that it was just Willi's time to die and this fatal accident was unpreventable.

 

Now let's see a show of hands from those that don't think this geocaching death could have been prevented...

 

I do believe something needs to be fixed. And as I stated that is the local attitude towards caches that do not meet the guidelines. It also includes the removal of any reviewers not willing to enforce guideline breaches which have been brought to their attention.

 

You can keep acting like you are the only person that gives a rip. But just because I don't happen to agree with your assessment of the situation doesn't mean I don't care that someone died.

 

You may be the self-appointed king of Off Topic, but that title does not extend to this board.

Edited December 23, 2011 by GeoBain

[veit]

Sorry for posting 5 times in a row, wanted to get these things done. Just received Groundspeak's Newsletter which reminded me about the existance of Facebook, so posted this on the main geocaching.com FB page, I hope it will bring more people, ideas and maybe an official statement.

 

After tragic death of experienced geocacher - what needs to change? We have been collecting ideas in this Forum thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203 - please add your input - in the Forum or here. Current list of suggestions in this post: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&st=500&p=4927506entry4927506. We'd also welcome an official statement from Groundspeak about any plans for action after this tragedy (or lack thereof). Thank you!

https://www.facebook.com/geocachingdotcom/posts/199209996834849

[+JesandTodd]

 

Personally I like the concept of a warning log. It is simple, it would easily (within reason) fit into the current system structure and could provide a benefit at a very low cost.

 

However I also think that there is already a problem with the current log system and unless that is addressed then any new log types will suffer from under-use for the same reason.

 

The problem is the lack of an ability to easily sort which logs you are viewing. Having a new warning log would be great, having to scroll through 85 non-warning logs to find them is silly. Why not be able to click on the warning log icon at the top of the list of logs and instantly have all those type logs be at the top?

 

Would a warning log have prevented this particular incident? Hard to determine but I honestly doubt it. But I do think it could help reduce future injuries which is really all we can hope to accomplish at this point.

 

This is exactly what I wanted. A warning log that I can easily access and view.

[+JesandTodd]

Sorry for posting 5 times in a row, wanted to get these things done. Just received Groundspeak's Newsletter which reminded me about the existance of Facebook, so posted this on the main geocaching.com FB page, I hope it will bring more people, ideas and maybe an official statement.

 

After tragic death of experienced geocacher - what needs to change? We have been collecting ideas in this Forum thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203 - please add your input - in the Forum or here. Current list of suggestions in this post: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&st=500&p=4927506entry4927506. We'd also welcome an official statement from Groundspeak about any plans for action after this tragedy (or lack thereof). Thank you!

https://www.facebook.com/geocachingdotcom/posts/199209996834849

 

I've been checking FB to see if anybody said anything.

 

GS should at least say something for Pete's sake.

[+niraD]

- caches not to be placed in "illegal locations". The many existing ones to be archived. This can be achieved by Groundspeak on a global scale (database query, mail to all reviewers to take action)

I've read this several times now, and I still don't get it. I agree that caches shouldn't be placed in illegal locations, but just what kind of "database query" are you imagining here? Is there a hidden "illegal location" attribute that only lackeys can access?

[veit]

GS should at least say something for Pete's sake.

 

Well, to be honest it is a difficult situation for them. No matter what they say (or more importantly, do) - it will be met with criticism. Either from those who don't see any need for changes, or from the likes of us who want to see safety issues addressed head on now. I understand that it is a very hard step especially for communication to go from "woohoo, we have 100,000 new caches in 4 months" to "uh oh, somebody got killed, we need to do something to prevent this in the future". And contrary to what some posted in this thread - I never crossed my mind to blame Groundspeak for what happened, but now they, as much as local and global community have a responsability to think hard what we can do.

[veit]

- caches not to be placed in "illegal locations". The many existing ones to be archived. This can be achieved by Groundspeak on a global scale (database query, mail to all reviewers to take action)

I've read this several times now, and I still don't get it. I agree that caches shouldn't be placed in illegal locations, but just what kind of "database query" are you imagining here? Is there a hidden "illegal location" attribute that only lackeys can access?

 

Caches in off-limits locations in Germany (and I imagine other places) generally are titled "Lost Place" or "LP" somewhere in the title or description. To show that a decision about this issue has been made, yes, they could all be archived after a database query and then those that were wrongly archived (a small minority I think) could be reopened after the CO explained/assured the reviewer that the location is legally accessible to the public. Mind you, personally I am not sure that this is the best solution, and it doesnt solve the problem of legal-but-dangerous caches, but it's been the hottest topic in this thread and participating here has really opened my eyes as to why.

Edited December 23, 2011 by veit

[+Snoogans]

 

Now let's see a show of hands from those that don't think this geocaching death could have been prevented...

 

My hands not up. I agree with you. The local community most definitely dropped the ball on this one.

 

I never blamed the local community. I'm leaving the blame game to the local authorities.

 

The very first fact in this death is that the CO place a cache in an off limits area.

 

That is not a pinpoint. That speaks volumes about the greater culture of geocaching.

 

• 
   
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety they might have been educated by the community at large NOT to hide a cache there.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety there might have been greater resources available than just a couple arse covering checkboxes on the cache listing submission form.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety the reviewer might have caught the fact that the listing was not up to guidelines.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety maybe 1 of the early finders would have reported the cache.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety Willi might not have had the choice to hunt that cache because the safety culture would have prevented the cache from being listed and failing that, suffering an archive prompted by a fellow concerned user.
  

 

None of that happened. Do you really believe it's just the local community at fault?

[+baloo&bd]

 

Now let's see a show of hands from those that don't think this geocaching death could have been prevented...

 

My hands not up. I agree with you. The local community most definitely dropped the ball on this one.

 

I never blamed the local community. I'm leaving the blame game to the local authorities.

 

The very first fact in this death is that the CO place a cache in an off limits area.

 

That is not a pinpoint. That speaks volumes about the greater culture of geocaching.

 

• 
   
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety they might have been educated by the community at large NOT to hide a cache there.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety there might have been greater resources available than just a couple arse covering checkboxes on the cache listing submission form.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety the reviewer might have caught the fact that the listing was not up to guidelines.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety maybe 1 of the early finders would have reported the cache.
  
• If we had a prevading culture of safety Willi might not have had the choice to hunt that cache because the safety culture would have prevented the cache from being listed and failing that, suffering an archive prompted by a fellow concerned user.
  

 

None of that happened. Do you really believe it's just the local community at fault?

 

Before I answer the last question, we need to address your list;

 

The guidelines clearly are designed, and the reviewers trained, with an emphasis on a culture of safety. They do not, however, have the ability to prevent individual(s) who make a conscious decision to disregard obvious safety issues.

 

The local community culture combined with a poor decision by the individual in question are the reason this happened. They, including the local reviewers who are also part of that community, have decided intentionally to disregard the culture of safety that GS has put in place and works remarkably well elsewhere. The OP, and now subsequently one other local, have stated repeatedly that aside from GS's safety culture, the locals have little to no respect for local laws and safety measures.

 

Sorry, no matter how you look at it, the answer is the same. It is a localized problem.

 

Do we all want to help? Most definitely. However the OP has stated that he does not want the root cause of the situation corrected and what little has been heard from the local community there have lead all to believe they do not desire our intervention, directly or indirectly. All attempts to help have been summarily rejected.

 

You can call it blame, fault or whatever. In reality, it is simple root cause analysis.

[Keystone]

I am growing weary of reading all the posts asking "how was this cache ever published?," posts calling for the German reviewers to be replaced, etc. I'm surprised nobody else has posted in their defense.

 

In fact, the German reviewer team well before this unfortunate incident took it upon themselves to reexamine the trend of caches in "Lost Places." I will not summarize the entire scope of those efforts here. I did, however, want to share how it is relevant to the Tanzstunde Cache. The reviewer, reading the listing, DID ask the cache owner prior to publication about where the cache was hidden, and whether it was legal to access the cache's hiding place. The owner gave an answer which the reviewer found satisfactory. Reading that answer (at least with Google Translator's help), I would also have published the listing had it been submitted in the USA.

 

If you did not see Willi searching for that cache, don't make assumptions about what he did or did not do. If you weren't with the cache owner when he hid the cache, don't make assumptions about what conversations he did or did not have. If you did not read the exchange between reviewer and owner prior to publication, don't make assumptions about what was said or not said.

[veit]

The guidelines clearly are designed, and the reviewers trained, with an emphasis on a culture of safety.

 

Could you please back this up with any quote? The word safety isn't even on that page. (http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx)

 

And, btw, as a side note - please carefully read the one we've been debating so much here:

 

"2. You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property."

 

and then compare that to the wording for all other items on the list (like "Geocaches are never buried." or "Wildlife is not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching." etc.)

 

I'm pretty sure it's no accident that it's worded the way it is. If Groundspeak was serious about it, it should really read "Caches are only hidden after the landowner/manger has given permission." - with all the implications for geocaching this would have that cezanne already has aptly described in this thread.

Edited December 23, 2011 by veit

[+CanadianRockies]

The guidelines clearly are designed, and the reviewers trained, with an emphasis on a culture of safety.

I'm not so sure about this. From another thread:

 

Post Reviewer Note

09/25/2009

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

[Keystone]

The guidelines clearly are designed, and the reviewers trained, with an emphasis on a culture of safety.

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.

[veit]

I am growing weary of reading all the posts asking "how was this cache ever published?," posts calling for the German reviewers to be replaced, etc. I'm surprised nobody else has posted in their defense.

 

In fact, the German reviewer team well before this unfortunate incident took it upon themselves to reexamine the trend of caches in "Lost Places." I will not summarize the entire scope of those efforts here. I did, however, want to share how it is relevant to the Tanzstunde Cache. The reviewer, reading the listing, DID ask the cache owner prior to publication about where the cache was hidden, and whether it was legal to access the cache's hiding place. The owner gave an answer which the reviewer found satisfactory. Reading that answer (at least with Google Translator's help), I would also have published the listing had it been submitted in the USA.

 

If you did not see Willi searching for that cache, don't make assumptions about what he did or did not do. If you weren't with the cache owner when he hid the cache, don't make assumptions about what conversations he did or did not have. If you did not read the exchange between reviewer and owner prior to publication, don't make assumptions about what was said or not said.

 

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".

[+baloo&bd]

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.

 

I stand corrected, however the guidelines do mention safety, however indirectly it might be. The very first point is is that "All local laws apply."

 

To CanadianRockies, Snoogans and any others awaiting a response from GS, I think you at least just got the opinion of one of our moderators. That will most likely be the closest you get.

 

With that, I am outta here. Nothing will or should change based on facts that have been presented in this thread so even trying to point out the obvious is simply not worth anymore effort.

Edited December 23, 2011 by baloo&bd

[veit]

The guidelines clearly are designed, and the reviewers trained, with an emphasis on a culture of safety.

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]

Edited December 23, 2011 by veit

[+Chokecherry]

The bridge went from being locked to keep trespassers out to a public walkway all of a sudden?

[Keystone]

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?

If I receive an email complaint or a "Needs Archived" log that is based on a safety concern, I look first for an obvious listing guideline violation. If there is none, then I review the cache history, including the archived pre-publication reviewer notes, to see if permission is in place. If there is express permission, then the safety issue is one for the cache owner and the land manager to resolve. If the cache was published based on assumption of adequate permission, then I ask myself whether the safety issue makes it unreasonable for me to assume that adequate permission is in place. If I find the assumption unreasonable, then I disable the listing and ask the cache owner to confirm that permission is in place. I use this form letter:

 

Hello, I was summoned here by the "needs archived" log. I am temporarily disabling this listing.

 

Cache owner, please confirm that you have permission for your cache to be hidden at this location. Please only re-enable your cache if you can add this statement. If you do not have permission, please either obtain permission or archive your listing. I will check back in a week or two to confirm that this matter has been addressed.

 

Thank you,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

Note that the form letter is based upon the concept of permission, even if the reason I asked the question was because of a serious safety concern. I use the same form letter if, for example, an angry homeowner is telling geocachers to stay off their private property.

[veit]

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.

[4wheelin_fool]

It seems rather obvious that the area was known to everyone in the country to be off limits, including the reviewer. I can glean that much from reading the cache page, as well as the other cache page that I posted a NA log on. If they want to imply that the cache owner was being deceptive about the area being a public place, that is very hard to believe.

 

I do not think that they could, or should be responsible for safety. However they should be experts on trespassing issues, but in my opinion it looks like they are not, or trying to avoid responsibility about the issue.

 

Being so prevalent in that culture, normally it would be difficult to put a stop to it. However after this latest incident, it should be rather easy. Here is their big chance.

[+Snoogans]

The guidelines clearly are designed, and the reviewers trained, with an emphasis on a culture of safety.

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.

 

"Groundspeak is a listing service, not an insurer or guarantor of safety."

 

I don't believe Groundspeak needs to be either of those things and it would be unrealistic to expect it.

 

In my opinion, what needs to be improved is stewardship of the sport/hobby/activity/social network of geocaching.com. This can be done without assuming greater liability.

 

Swim at your own risk is not adequate anymore. Not from Groundspeak and not from the community that as built and sustained this listing service.

 

The proposed warning & report features may not work or may not be needed. They may open the CO or Groundspeak up to greater liability. That remains to be seen.

 

Someone said in the first couple of pages in this thread, "You can't nerf the world." It made me chuckle because it rings true.

 

You certainly can't reduce the inherent risks of a particular cache and those self same risks are what make many caches fun and memorable.....

 

What we can do is educate our community and especially our newest members about the risks of caching in its various forms.

 

As a community...

 

We can embrace the message to cache smarter and safer especially amongst our newest members.

We can eliminate the social fear of posting an SBA or NM on a cache in communities where that exists.

We can encourage event hosts to take a moment (3 to 5 minutes tops) to talk about caching safety at events.

We can actively educate our newest members about the guidelines and how to build a positive relationship with the reviewers.

We can locally educate our members about local laws and how to contact local land managers for permission.

 

The listing service can endorse and promote higher awareness amongst its users by doing any of the following...

 

Create a Geocaching Safety Forum moderated by safety professionals or other members of the community with a keen interest in improving the geocaching safety culture.

 

Use it's various media to promote caching smarter and safer through brief safety messages in it's various media: facebook, twitter, blogs, youtube channel, etc.

 

Take a moment to discuss geocaching safety at its official sponsored events.

 

None of this is hard and there are surely many more items that could be added to the list.

 

I am not a lawyer, but I believe none of what I have proposed opens anyone up to greater liability and if anything it just might reduce it by actually saving serious injuries and lives in the long term.

 

In the safety business we have a term called the standard of care which is derived from the duty to care. None exists here because Groundspeak doesn't employ the community to hunt caches.

 

However, I don't think a cache owner is totally off the hook where the duty to care is concerned. Again, IANAL, but I have a hunch that if it were tried in a court that cache owners could find themselves on the hook for a death or serious injury if it could be proven to have happened while hunting their cache. To me that means within feet or yards of a cache. ( The mechanism for this most recent death occurred within 1 to 3 feet from what the pictures show.)

 

Groundspeak's disclaimer does a good job of covering Groundspeak, but there is that clause that tends to make me as a cache owner feel like I'm on an island all by my lonesome. I could be wrong, but that's how it feels.....

 

SO.....

 

Swim at your own risk..... Howz that workin' for us?

 

Pick one:

 

1) Eh, status quo works for me. Don't fix what ain't broke. It was them Germans, not us. Sucks for them, but WE don't need to change a thang.

 

or,

 

2) Maybe we should try as a community to increase safety awareness and improve on the process(s) that lead to Willi's death, stop laying blame, and start making a difference to change at risk behaviors across the board to save injuries and lives in the future.

 

I trust Groundspeak will do what's right for them and their stewardship of their listing service, employees, volunteers, users, and customers. Whatever that may be.

 

I'll put my money where my mouth is and up the safety info on my caches, talk to the group as a whole about geocaching safety at events I host and maybe even events I attend if wanted and allowed, and I'll encourage my local and regional geocaching forum owners and webmasters to create a geocaching safety forum on their websites. That much I can do. I've offered to help mod the Safety Forum I proposed here, but I suspect my posting history may be too polarizing to be considered as a mod. It makes no difference to me. I would just be happy to see Groundspeak endorsing a geocaching culture of safety.

 

What will you (the royal you) do?

Edited December 23, 2011 by Snoogans

[+B+L]

I am growing weary of reading all the posts asking "how was this cache ever published?," posts calling for the German reviewers to be replaced, etc. I'm surprised nobody else has posted in their defense.

 

In fact, the German reviewer team well before this unfortunate incident took it upon themselves to reexamine the trend of caches in "Lost Places." I will not summarize the entire scope of those efforts here. I did, however, want to share how it is relevant to the Tanzstunde Cache. The reviewer, reading the listing, DID ask the cache owner prior to publication about where the cache was hidden, and whether it was legal to access the cache's hiding place. The owner gave an answer which the reviewer found satisfactory. Reading that answer (at least with Google Translator's help), I would also have published the listing had it been submitted in the USA.

 

If you did not see Willi searching for that cache, don't make assumptions about what he did or did not do. If you weren't with the cache owner when he hid the cache, don't make assumptions about what conversations he did or did not have. If you did not read the exchange between reviewer and owner prior to publication, don't make assumptions about what was said or not said.

No offense, but defensive posts like this are not helpful. There is no transparency in the reviewing process, so of course there will always be questions, especially in circumstances like this. Saying you too would have published this cache is not very comforting. You've left out any details and made some vague assurances, but you actually seem to be saying that misleading the reviewers is a successful strategy for getting a questionable cache published.

 

From what we do know, it seems pretty obvious that publishing this cache was a mistake. What I think we'd really like to hear are some assurances about improving the process. Snoogans has posted some good ideas about where to start.

[cezanne]

- caches not to be placed in "illegal locations". The many existing ones to be archived. This can be achieved by Groundspeak on a global scale (database query, mail to all reviewers to take action)

I've read this several times now, and I still don't get it. I agree that caches shouldn't be placed in illegal locations, but just what kind of "database query" are you imagining here? Is there a hidden "illegal location" attribute that only lackeys can access?

 

Caches in off-limits locations in Germany (and I imagine other places) generally are titled "Lost Place" or "LP" somewhere in the title or description.

 

I do not agree. There are lost place caches (caches at abandoned structure) that do contain lp or lost place in the name, there are legal caches at lost places (outside of them) that contain lost place in the name, and there are many caches at illegal places that are located at locations that are definitely not abdandoned structures (this is true both for the cache where Willi died and for the cache I referred to).

 

I still think that it is the attitude of the local communities that needs to change. Do you really think that they find enough reviewers that are willing to act against a very large group in the long run? They rather would resign and not enough successors would be found.

Think e.g. about how ApproV has been attacked for archiving several LP caches after an incident.

 

Cezanne

[+fizzymagic]

From what we do know, it seems pretty obvious that publishing this cache was a mistake.

 

Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

It's not obvious to me. What is obvious is that seeking it at night, alone, disobeying the law was a mistake. But the person who made that mistake is not a part of this conversation.

 

I don't think Groundspeak did anything wrong in this case. And believe me, I am more than happy to criticize Groundspeak when they do something wrong. But they are a listing service, not a hand-holding service, and they cannot and should not be held responsible for poor judgment on the part of the CO, the seeker, and the local community.

[cezanne]

I am growing weary of reading all the posts asking "how was this cache ever published?," posts calling for the German reviewers to be replaced, etc. I'm surprised nobody else has posted in their defense.

 

I needed time to catch up with the discussion. I neither think that the German reviewers need to be replaced nor that such an exchange would change anything. The attitude of the local communities needs to change.

 

In fact, the German reviewer team well before this unfortunate incident took it upon themselves to reexamine the trend of caches in "Lost Places."

 

That's true, but also has happened as the result of incidents at lost place caches. The approach ahs been and still is: Tolerate it unless troubles arise. Moreover, it needs to be added that a lot of work is still to be done as up to now that many results are to be seen.

 

Neither the cache where Willi has died nor the one on high tower in a shopping mall mentioned by myself (not in Germany) are located at lost places (abandoned structures). So increasing awareness for the problems caused by lost place caches will not help with respect to the type of caches mentioned here.

 

 

The reviewer, reading the listing, DID ask the cache owner prior to publication about where the cache was hidden, and whether it was legal to access the cache's hiding place. The owner gave an answer which the reviewer found satisfactory. Reading that answer (at least with Google Translator's help), I would also have published the listing had it been submitted in the USA.

 

The question is just whether if you lived in Germany, you really would have believed the answer. With my knowledge about Germany I would not have believed it. I am not going to blame the reviewer. I am going to blame the behaviour of so many cachers in countries like Germany and Austria where lying has become something which is done regularly to get caches published.

 

This is going to be a really major problem. Sometimes the reviewers do have a chance to realize that what they are told is not the truth, in other cases they do not have a chance (e.g. when fake coordinates for caches are entered in the data base - something which happens many, many times in Austria recently). Too many cachers think that every sort of trick/lie etc is ok to get a cache published.

 

That said and having a lot of understanding that reviewers do not like to act against the will of the majority of the local community,

I need to say that it has always been common knowledge that structures like the bridge where Willi died and towers in shopping malls are not places that unauthorized people are supposed to climb up. Maybe the hint for the bridge cache in Pirna has been added after publication (this hint makes it clear that one has to climb up). In the case of the cache in the shopping mall I do know that the cache description has not been changed.

 

It appears to me that the strategy of many reviewers in countries like Germany and Austria has been as follows: Allow as many caches as possible and react only if troubles arise. I think that one of the reasons for doing so is that in fact almost all caches there illegal in some sense. There is no realistic chance to ask for permission and get it granted for most caches, including harmless family caches out in the forest placed at a trail. It think that this puts the reviewers in some kind of passive situation. Moreover, one needs to take into account that reviewers are chosen from the set of cachers who are very active in the community and so they will likely have similar caching preferences as many of their fellow cachers. Among the reviewers I know several who are really fond of caches at bridges, high towers etc. It is quite natural that a reviewer who has visited numerous such caches can hardly deny the publication of further such caches. The same applies to the request to post N/A logs. There are those cachers who enjoy such caches themselves and have done many of them - they hardly will post a N/A - and those who never do such caches and who are easily attacked by the argument that they are cowards or just do not like such caches. I think one can expect from cachers to post N/A logs or contact reviewers if they have the feeling that from time to time a cache slips through. If numerous problem caches of the same type exist and some of them have been visited by reviewers inspite of being at illegal locations, who do you think will feel motivated to contact the reviewers?

 

I guess part of the problem is that most cachers assume that if there exists a considerable number of caches of a certain type in a region and new caches of that type are still published, that such caches are ok and that those who think they are not ok are wrong or just like to act as geocaching police.

 

 

If you did not see Willi searching for that cache, don't make assumptions about what he did or did not do. If you weren't with the cache owner when he hid the cache, don't make assumptions about what conversations he did or did not have. If you did not read the exchange between reviewer and owner prior to publication, don't make assumptions about what was said or not said.

 

I agree with you insofar that we should not make any assumptions on these aspects and that we should not assign any blame in this case.

I want to repeat, however, that is evident for anyone knowing such bridges that access is not allowed and permission will never be given to access it. Such caches exist under the assumption that needs to make sure not to be caught by the wrong persons who notify someone official.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited December 23, 2011 by cezanne

[I!]

• If we had a prevading culture of safety
  ...
  (x5)
  

I don't want a pervading culture of safety, thanks. I came here for what GS have described as a "light and fun" activity -- I don't want to feel like I'm stuck on some damned H&S training course.

 

By all means let's see minor improvements such as anonymous reporting; but leave the culture as-is.

[cezanne]

• If we had a prevading culture of safety
  ...
  (x5)
  

I don't want a pervading culture of safety, thanks. I came here for what GS have described as a "light and fun" activity -- I don't want to feel like I'm stuck on some damned H&S training course.

 

By all means let's see minor improvements such as anonymous reporting; but leave the culture as-is.

 

I think that there could be means to provide those in need with more information on security aspects while at the same time

leading cachers like you unaffected. Sometimes my heart almost stops when I read about the manner some cachers who are completely unexperienced in climbing and using climbing gear climb up bridges, high trees without anyone experienced with them and without having obtained any serious instruction on how to use the gear.

 

With the increasing number of cachers the number of incidents will increase. One needs to take into account that geocaches tend to motivate people to do things they never would have done without a geocache being there. This implies e.g. also that people go for caches in Alpine regions without having any experience there and without being able to evaluate risks like for rockfall, avalanges etc

So I do think that some warnings for such dangers can do no harm as a new audience is going to such locations. Of course, one needs to find the proper balance.

 

Cezanne

Edited December 23, 2011 by cezanne

[+B+L]

From what we do know, it seems pretty obvious that publishing this cache was a mistake.

 

Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quibble all you want, but I said it seems obvious, not that it was obvious.

 

It's not obvious to me. What is obvious is that seeking it at night, alone, disobeying the law was a mistake. But the person who made that mistake is not a part of this conversation.

 

I don't think Groundspeak did anything wrong in this case. And believe me, I am more than happy to criticize Groundspeak when they do something wrong. But they are a listing service, not a hand-holding service, and they cannot and should not be held responsible for poor judgment on the part of the CO, the seeker, and the local community.

Yes, but they should be held responsible for their own poor judgement. The listing service excuse gets trotted out every time it is convenient, but this time the listing service published a cache that should not have been approved. Keystone tells us that when the cache owner was questioned about the legality of the access, they gave a satisfactory answer. We don't know what that means. It could mean the cache owner was disingenuous, or it could mean they were mistaken. I say it means the reviewing process is flawed and easily circumvented.

 

If the reviewers do not have access to tools which will allow them to make an independent determination about the validity of a proposed cache location, they need to be given them. If there is a policy to use the owner's word as the sole determination, then that policy needs to be re-evaluated. And there is no reason for the reviewing process to be opaque like it is currently.

[Keystone]

If the reviewers do not have access to tools which will allow them to make an independent determination about the validity of a proposed cache location, they need to be given them.

That would fundamentally re-define my job. The only way I'd be comfortable becoming the owner's guarantor and making this independent determination would be to visit each cache location and talk with the land owner. I could review a few caches per week rather than a few per hour. I'd quit and spend more time volunteering for my church's safety and security team.

[cezanne]

But they are a listing service, not a hand-holding service, and they cannot and should not be held responsible for poor judgment on the part of the CO, the seeker, and the local community.

 

Yes, they are a listing service, but already the fact that reviewers are also cache owners, seekers and part of the local community shows that there are interconnections. Consider a cache like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0eb4fae2-0109-41f7-bf01-03017a729130

It has been archived meanwhile, but not due to a request or because the cache is illegal, but for reasons that do not play any role here.

The reviewer who has published the cache certainly knew already at the moment of publication that the cache is not hidden at a location one is supposed to visit. Even if she should not have known, he certainly found out when visiting the cache. I do not want to blame him for visiting the cache. I just want to make clear that the judgement of the community and its members plays a big role.

New cachers learn from experience and from existing caches and from more experienced cachers.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

If the reviewers do not have access to tools which will allow them to make an independent determination about the validity of a proposed cache location, they need to be given them.

That would fundamentally re-define my job. The only way I'd be comfortable becoming the owner's guarantor and making this independent determination would be to visit each cache location and talk with the land owner. I could review a few caches per week rather than a few per hour. I'd quit and spend more time volunteering for my church's safety and security team.

 

Of course it is not a reasonable expectation that a reviewer visits the cache locations.

I do think, however, that reviewers should e.g. be familiar with local laws and be informed about what is allowed in environtmental protection areas to provide just one example. It is already sad enough that the average cacher in many countries I know of is not informed about such laws. I think, however, that reviewers should be familiar with such laws. If they are not, most of what is written in the guidelines about legal issues does not make any sense.

 

Some time ago it happened to me that a local reviewer that published a cache inside a cave in Winter time, told me that he did not know about the fact that caves which are inhabited by bats are not supposed to be visited in Winter time. Incidents like that one and many others make me believe that there are issues involved with the review process that are beyond what you refer to. I believe that being familar with the basic laws that are important with respect to geocaching is a more important qualification for a reviewer than having found many caches. Of course, we cannot expect reviewers to be law experts, but I think that they should have undergo some form of training (a weekend seminar might already suffice) in this respect if they do not happen to have the required knowledge.

 

Cezanne

[+dbrierley]

If you did not see Willi searching for that cache, don't make assumptions about what he did or did not do. If you weren't with the cache owner when he hid the cache, don't make assumptions about what conversations he did or did not have. If you did not read the exchange between reviewer and owner prior to publication, don't make assumptions about what was said or not said.

 

But then:

 

If the cache was published based on assumption of adequate permission, then I ask myself whether the safety issue makes it unreasonable for me to assume that adequate permission is in place. If I find the assumption unreasonable, then I disable the listing and ask the cache owner to confirm that permission is in place. I use this form letter:

 

It seems there are assumptions being made all around. "Unreasonable" and "reasonable" are relative terms, just like "adequate."

[+Snoogans]

• If we had a pervading culture of safety
  ...
  (x5)
  

I don't want a pervading culture of safety, thanks. I came here for what GS have described as a "light and fun" activity -- I don't want to feel like I'm stuck on some damned H&S training course.

 

By all means let's see minor improvements such as anonymous reporting; but leave the culture as-is.

 

pervading - present participle of per·vade (Verb)Verb:

1.(esp. of a smell) Spread through and be perceived in every part of.

2.(of an influence, feeling, or quality) Be present and apparent throughout

 

I don't think encouraging folks to cache smarter and safer, as a community, in this wave of super-accellerated growth would mean being forced to sit through "damned" healh & safety courses. Your attitude toward safety is interesting though....

 

I'm sure Willi was having some light fun that night too. In a pervading safety culture, it might still be light and fun for him and his family.

 

Anonymous reporting might have saved him... MIGHT have... But it has become evident on this thread that the culture failed at least 36 times in keeping it light and fun for everyone directly affected by Willi's death.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Snoogans

[+addisonbr]

In fact, the German reviewer team well before this unfortunate incident took it upon themselves to reexamine the trend of caches in "Lost Places." I will not summarize the entire scope of those efforts here...

If you did not read the exchange between reviewer and owner prior to publication, don't make assumptions about what was said or not said.

I mean this in the gentlest way possible, because I respect and admire the job you do both in reviewing your area and in moderating these boards. It's a tireless and usually thankless job.

 

But Groundspeak doesn't have a culture of transparency as a company. I don't think Groundspeak gets to have it both ways - they can't keep everything behind the scenes and responses to an absolute minimum, and also demand that people not try to make assumptions and make sense of the situation and try to fill in some Groundspeak-created gaps in a case like this.

 

Something very awful happened here. It's perfectly reasonable - human in fact - for people to try to figure out how it could have been handled differently. If Groundspeak wants to keep their reviewer-CO conversations private and wants to keep their reviewer-only forums behind closed doors I *totally* understand that. But maintaining that secrecy and also admonishing a community for trying to figure out what led to the horribleness of what happened and for wanting to prevent it from happening in the future, that doesn't really work.

 

Both things don't get to be.

[Keystone]

But Groundspeak doesn't have a culture of transparency as a company. I don't think Groundspeak gets to have it both ways - they can't keep everything behind the scenes and responses to an absolute minimum, and also demand that people not try to make assumptions and make sense of the situation and try to fill in some Groundspeak-created gaps in a case like this.

Did you check the German Reviewer Blog and the German section of the Groundspeak Wiki that the OP linked to? I didn't want to summarize them because I don't speak German. I'm generally familiar with the efforts of the German team and Groundspeak to address the issues discussed in the blog post. I know there are also active discussions in several German-speaking forums in which reviewers participate. Sounds transparent to me.

 

But maintaining that secrecy and also admonishing a community for trying to figure out what led to the horribleness of what happened and for wanting to prevent it from happening in the future, that doesn't really work.

 

Both things don't get to be.

Sorry for creating that perceived inconsistency. I came here in an effort to provide facts and increased transparency. To resolve the perceived inconsistency, I won't post further to this thread. It's threads like this one that help me appreciate why the majority of the reviewer team never posts in this forum.

 

Besides, I have a busy weekend ahead of me as a Safety volunteer on behalf of a different organization.