Jump to content

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


veit

Recommended Posts

Here is my version of the facts gleaned from the article and the cache page and a teeny, but recordable, bit of common knowledge:

 

(Feel free to comment if you feel something is missing, in the wrong order, or doesn't belong there.)

 

1. The CO placed the cache in an off limits area. Whether he knew or not.

2. Off limits signage was missing.

3. The lock to the catwalk was either broken or missing.

4. The CO submitted the cache checking the boxes that they had read the guidelines and had obtained adequate permission.

5. The CO encouraged folks to go there at night because of “muggle activity.”

6. The CO placed the cache near the gap in the catwalk evidenced by the hint.

7. It passed review and was published. (No judgments made on the process. Just the fact.)

8. The cache, in fact, did not meet Groundspeak’s hiding guidelines.

9. 34 finders either didn't know the guidelines well enough to report it, didn't care enough to report it, or were afraid to report it. Mix and match.

10. 2 of the finders reported near misses with the gap in the catwalk while hunting for the cache.

11. Willimax got the coords to the cache from geocaching.com and chose to hunt for it.

12. After arriving on scene alone, Willi chose to go ahead and search for the cache.

13. The accident appears to have happened at night.

14. The temp may have been cold, but other weather factors are unknown.

15. It appears Willi fell through the gap in the catwalk very near the cache.

16. The water level below was very low offering no cushion to the fall.

17. Fatal injuries (to the head) were caused by a fall from the height above the (appears to be) drainage canal or urban river. (Manmade looking.)

18. Willi didn’t die right away. He was able to crawl a few yards before succumbing to his injuries.

19. Willi was 21yo when he died.

 

The terrain was only rated at a "3". Usually if it is a 4 or 5 people take closer notice to precautions, so perhaps additional warnings were warranted. He had been caching since he was 15, and did plenty of them, so perhaps he did not view it as such a big deal.

 

Because: Possibly wearing a description of the hiding place in the tragedy. The forum will be pointed out that it was better to seek the treasure of the night. On the day were on their way to the bridge to many people.

"That was a big mistake," said Dominika Urban, who is himself in five years than in Saxony Geocacherin go. "It is indeed easy on the bridge, the terrain is not difficult to discover." Of the five levels of difficulty is the Gottleuba Bridge a good "three" was.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Can you imagine the shadows a headlamp or flashlight would cause on this metal bridge?! I bet you cant even see that gap at night. No wonder he fell off.

 

The owner of this cache should be ashamed, IMO. I bet they didn't place this cache at night.

 

Edit: And it appears you may even have to leave the catwalk and traverse a bridge piling in order to retrieve that cache. Man.. terrible.

 

Shaun

Edited by ShaunEM
Link to comment

What I find most horrible is that the cache was placed near the gap and there was no 'BE CAREFUL-GAP IN BRIDGE FLOOR' on the cache page.

 

I definatley don't think the placement was malicious, but you have to wonder sometimes how a CO could have such little common sense.

 

Worse yet, none of the 34 finders had the common sense to report the danger and get something done about it. Shame on them. :mad:

 

These are the caches I object to. The ones where the CO brings someone to an place with an unusual or unexpected danger. When there are plenty of safer alternatives nearby. Even If the CO puts a warning on the cache page (which someone might easily miss), WHY put a cache there? Why put people's lives at unecessary risk?

 

Put the dadgum cache elsewhere.

Link to comment

What I find most horrible is that the cache was placed near the gap and there was no 'BE CAREFUL-GAP IN BRIDGE FLOOR' on the cache page.

 

I definatley don't think the placement was malicious, but you have to wonder sometimes how a CO could have such little common sense.

 

Worse yet, none of the 34 finders had the common sense to report the danger and get something done about it. Shame on them. :mad:

 

These are the caches I object to. The ones where the CO brings someone to an place with an unusual or unexpected danger. When there are plenty of safer alternatives nearby. Even If the CO puts a warning on the cache page (which someone might easily miss), WHY put a cache there? Why put people's lives at unecessary risk?

 

Put the dadgum cache elsewhere.

 

Some people don't WANT "safe".

Link to comment

Personally I can't believe some of the comments made by my fellow cachers earlier in this blog. We all take on 'generic risks' whilst geocaching, but surely if a specific danger is noted during a search, the common sense thing to do is make it known to subsequent searchers as part of your log, and maybe even include a photo. I would consider it to be negligence not to do so.

My heart goes out the family & friends of this unfortunate person.

 

Croesgadwr,

A North Wales geocacher.

Link to comment

What I find most horrible is that the cache was placed near the gap and there was no 'BE CAREFUL-GAP IN BRIDGE FLOOR' on the cache page.

 

I definatley don't think the placement was malicious, but you have to wonder sometimes how a CO could have such little common sense.

 

Worse yet, none of the 34 finders had the common sense to report the danger and get something done about it. Shame on them. :mad:

 

These are the caches I object to. The ones where the CO brings someone to an place with an unusual or unexpected danger. When there are plenty of safer alternatives nearby. Even If the CO puts a warning on the cache page (which someone might easily miss), WHY put a cache there? Why put people's lives at unecessary risk?

 

Put the dadgum cache elsewhere.

 

Some people don't WANT "safe".

 

Being willing to risk your own personal safety is one thing.

 

Putting other people in danger is another.

 

I don't personally object to caches where the danger is obvious, there are ways to do it safely (such as with equipment) and clear warnings are given.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

What I find most horrible is that the cache was placed near the gap and there was no 'BE CAREFUL-GAP IN BRIDGE FLOOR' on the cache page.

 

I definatley don't think the placement was malicious, but you have to wonder sometimes how a CO could have such little common sense.

 

Worse yet, none of the 34 finders had the common sense to report the danger and get something done about it. Shame on them. :mad:

 

These are the caches I object to. The ones where the CO brings someone to an place with an unusual or unexpected danger. When there are plenty of safer alternatives nearby. Even If the CO puts a warning on the cache page (which someone might easily miss), WHY put a cache there? Why put people's lives at unecessary risk?

 

Put the dadgum cache elsewhere.

 

Some people don't WANT "safe".

 

BTW, I have a special cache waiting just for you, in case you ever visit our area.

Link to comment

I don't personally object to caches where the danger is obvious, there are ways to do it safely (such as with equipment) and clear warnings are given.

I suspect the difficulty is in defining what is obvious. Ignoring, for the moment, any legal or permission issues with climbing on the bridge, one might think that if you have to go on a rickety catwalk to retrieve the cache you would proceed with some caution. I do find it troubling that the cache owner knew there was a missing section yet told finders to do this at night when it might be hard to see the gap.

 

I proceed with caution on all caches because dangers - even on the simplest kid friendly hide - are not always obvious, and because I've learned the cache owners sometimes fail to provide warnings because they feel them to be superfluous.

 

That said, it appears that the caches that some believe should be banned because they lead finders to some unanticipated risk, are often caches where permission seems questionable. I don't think there is any need for guidelines to address dangers per se. If you find a cache that puts gecoachers in some sort of risk that you believe would likely preclude the land owner or manager from giving permission you can post a needs archive or contact a reviewer with those concerns.

Link to comment
why would anybody want to employ a simple warning about a big gaping hole in the middle of a bridge on a cache that encourages people to cross at night?

Yup. Though that question should probably be directed at the cache owner, since they were the one who put the warning on the cache page. Or you could put that question to the seekers who also put the warning in the Found It logs. <_<:rolleyes:

 

When you put a question like that to someone who doesn't want the entire world covered in bubble wrap, and every sharp corner covered in foam, it kind of goes astray from the beginning...

 

You are looking for safety issues and finding them.

This is what we call "A solution in search of a problem". B)

 

A warning log is NOT a restructuring of the whole website.

Nope. Not restructuring. That's true. Just redundant.

A cache that already had half a dozen warnings won't really benefit from a seventh.

Either a potential seeker will look at the cache page or they won't.

If they won't read the cache page, covering it with warnings won't help.

But what about those who do read the cache page prior to seeking a risky cache?

Either they will acknowledge the existing warnings or they will dismiss them.

If they are the type who dismisses warnings, adding more won't help.

If they are the type who do pay attention to the warnings, adding more won't help.

In this case, there were at least 6 hazard indicators.

I don't know where Willi fit on that spectrum.

But I do know that, no matter where he would fit, more warnings wouldn't have helped.

 

No warnings about the missing section.

Other than the half dozen warnings already pointed out?

The only way we can avoid things like this happening again is if we stick to reality.

Creating a myth might be fun, and might gain you some credibility if folks aren't paying attention.

But it really doesn't help solve the problem.

There were warnings. Lots of them.

 

there was no 'BE CAREFUL-GAP IN BRIDGE FLOOR' on the cache page.

If you know there's a gap in the walkway, and the walkway is elevated way above a shallow, boulder strewn stream, do I really need to tell you "BE CAREFUL!"?

 

The location itself was the first clue that this was not a P&G. Just by showing up at a sight like that, any reasonable and prudent person would have known that this was a place where safety would be important. Knowing that ground zero is a location worthy of caution, only a careless cacher would dive in without checking the cache page. Since Willi was a well respected member of the community, I would like to assume that he was not reckless, and that he would have studied everything available to him before going for it.

 

On that assumption;

 

Willi read the cache page which told him there was a hole. Willi read the prior logs, which told him the hole was in the walkway, and that the hole was in a place where folks could easily step into it. Willi read the 3.5 terrain rating which told him it was somewhere between "Not suitable for small children. May have steep elevation changes" and "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. Will have very steep elevation requiring use of hands". This reenforced the notion that focus was critical. He was by himself, which makes focusing on every single aspect of your surroundings even more important. We know from reviewing the Weather Underground archives that the temperature was in the high 30's, low 40's. We know that our bodies lose fine motor skills when the temperature drops, making attention to detail even more important.

 

Everything about that location screams "DANGER!"

 

And adding another warning would have changed the outcome? Really? :unsure:

 

We all take on 'generic risks' whilst geocaching, but surely if a specific danger is noted during a search, the common sense thing to do is make it known to subsequent searchers as part of your log...

They did. We just don't know of Willi listened.

 

I don't personally object to caches where the danger is obvious

Then what is your objection to this cache? I've never been to the cache site, and just a glimpse at the cache page told me that this was not a safe place to play. Having seen the pictures from ground zero further reenforced my belief that this was an inherently dangerous location. I imagine that there are people in the world who could not glean that from both the cache page, the prior logs and the actual location itself, but these folks should probably not be allowed outdoors by themselves.

 

Repeat: This location was dangerous. That much was obvious.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
why would anybody want to employ a simple warning about a big gaping hole in the middle of a bridge on a cache that encourages people to cross at night?

Yup. Though that question should probably be directed at the cache owner, since they were the one who put the warning on the cache page. Or you could put that question to the seekers who also put the warning in the Found It logs. <_<:rolleyes:

 

When you put a question like that to someone who doesn't want the entire world covered in bubble wrap, and every sharp corner covered in foam, it kind of goes astray from the beginning...

 

You are looking for safety issues and finding them.

This is what we call "A solution in search of a problem". B)

 

A warning log is NOT a restructuring of the whole website.

Nope. Not restructuring. That's true. Just redundant.

A cache that already had half a dozen warnings won't really benefit from a seventh.

Either a potential seeker will look at the cache page or they won't.

If they won't read the cache page, covering it with warnings won't help.

But what about those who do read the cache page prior to seeking a risky cache?

Either they will acknowledge the existing warnings or they will dismiss them.

If they are the type who dismisses warnings, adding more won't help.

If they are the type who do pay attention to the warnings, adding more won't help.

In this case, there were at least 6 hazard indicators.

I don't know where Willi fit on that spectrum.

But I do know that, no matter where he would fit, more warnings wouldn't have helped.

 

No warnings about the missing section.

Other than the half dozen warnings already pointed out?

The only way we can avoid things like this happening again is if we stick to reality.

Creating a myth might be fun, and might gain you some credibility if folks aren't paying attention.

But it really doesn't help solve the problem.

There were warnings. Lots of them.

 

there was no 'BE CAREFUL-GAP IN BRIDGE FLOOR' on the cache page.

If you know there's a gap in the walkway, and the walkway is elevated way above a shallow, boulder strewn stream, do I really need to tell you "BE CAREFUL!"?

 

The location itself was the first clue that this was not a P&G. Just by showing up at a sight like that, any reasonable and prudent person would have known that this was a place where safety would be important. Knowing that ground zero is a location worthy of caution, only a careless cacher would dive in without checking the cache page. Since Willi was a well respected member of the community, I would like to assume that he was not reckless, and that he would have studied everything available to him before going for it.

 

On that assumption;

 

Willi read the cache page which told him there was a hole. Willi read the prior logs, which told him the hole was in the walkway, and that the hole was in a place where folks could easily step into it. Willi read the 3.5 terrain rating which told him it was somewhere between "Not suitable for small children. May have steep elevation changes" and "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. Will have very steep elevation requiring use of hands". This reenforced the notion that focus was critical. He was by himself, which makes focusing on every single aspect of your surroundings even more important. We know from reviewing the Weather Underground archives that the temperature was in the high 30's, low 40's. We know that our bodies lose fine motor skills when the temperature drops, making attention to detail even more important.

 

Everything about that location screams "DANGER!"

 

And adding another warning would have changed the outcome? Really? :unsure:

 

We all take on 'generic risks' whilst geocaching, but surely if a specific danger is noted during a search, the common sense thing to do is make it known to subsequent searchers as part of your log...

They did. We just don't know of Willi listened.

 

I don't personally object to caches where the danger is obvious

Then what is your objection to this cache? I've never been to the cache site, and just a glimpse at the cache page told me that this was not a safe place to play. Having seen the pictures from ground zero further reenforced my belief that this was an inherently dangerous location. I imagine that there are people in the world who could not glean that from both the cache page, the prior logs and the actual location itself, but these folks should probably not be allowed outdoors by themselves.

 

Repeat: This location was dangerous. That much was obvious.

 

Well put. I admire how nicely you phrased what I really wanted to say. Thanks for that.

Link to comment

 

Nope. Not restructuring. That's true. Just redundant.

A cache that already had half a dozen warnings won't really benefit from a seventh.

Either a potential seeker will look at the cache page or they won't..

 

Not true.

 

Right now, there's no way for me to know of any user logged warnings that can be buried in the hundreds of logs unless I read each and every log on each and every cache prior to finding them.

 

That's both ridiculous and unrealistic.

 

If we could have these *warning* logs be a clickable log, or a user assigned clickable attribute, that I can click and read prior to my search, it would be helpful.

 

Maybe not to you (hey, fantastic) but it would be for me. if I'm heading out to a cache alone, and I see that there are 3 warning logs., you bet your you-know-what I'm going to read them. I do not read all the logs prior to finding the cache. I do read the cache page. Things change. Environments change, COs fall out of this game...this is a user log that is easily accessible and viewable.

 

Is that really so hard?

 

As it stands-I have NO way of knowing if there was a user logged warning, unless it's the in the last 5 logs, and I'm stumped and then read those last 5 logs.

 

{Warning-hey, there's a huge hole in this bridge, be careful!}

 

Is that really so much to ask for? Are you really giving up so much of your freedom that this is an impossible request?

 

This isnt bubble wrapping the world. That's such a lame argument that many have made in this thread. This is making warnings easily viewable, and helping preventing accidents, and possible deaths.

 

But hey, let's all go on believing that anything that will be helpful to others is bubble wrapping, or infringing on our rights, or admitting that were stupid, or asking someone else to get involved, or bucking the status quo, or whatever excuse we need to make.

Link to comment

It is with a great feeling of sadness for the relatives and friends of Willi that I read of his tragic death. Although I knew him not, I do know that the loss of a member of one's circle is always keenly felt.

 

It is, however, heartening to see that his death has made some members of our Geocaching Community, of which he was part, stop to consider how similar tragic events can be mimimised in the future.

 

Comments made in this forum have prompted me to consider again how I fit within this environment. Those comments have, for me, identified two key areas; namely legality and safety.

In many of the comments in posts above these have tended to be dealt with together. While each may have some bearing on the other I believe they need to be addressed as separate issues. After all we could have legal and illegal caches where safey issues are likely to be relatively minimal (D1/T1) and legal and illegal caches where safety issues are absolutly vital (D5/T5); so I believe we need to separate the two.

 

But first I look at the overall picture as I see it.

 

The following comments are based on my understanding of the geocaching scene. I am happy to be corrected if my perception is flawed.

 

We, the individual members, and collective sub-groups of members, within the world-wide geocaching community, set the standards for the community by the manner in which we conduct ourselves within that community. It is by our individual and collective actions and attitudes that our community as a whole will be judged by those outside our community.

If I do not observe any code of conduct (written or otherwise) that the community sets for its members then my actions may well lead to that community being represented in an undesirable way.

 

Fortunately, the converse also applies.

 

My understanding of the structure of our world-wide community to is that we have:

Cache Owners

Members who VOLUNTARILY hide and maintain caches and publish the cache details so that others know of their existence and are provided with the opportunity to participate in the hobby activity we know as geocaching.

Cache Seekers

Members who CHOOSE to seek out the caches hidden by Cache Owners and who (hopefully) RELY ON THEIR OWN COMMON SENSE AND JUDGEMENT in all actions they take while carrying out the activity of geocaching.

A facilitator

An organistion (in our case Groundspeak) that provides a central point of contact through which Cache Owners are able to communicate information about their hidden caches to potential Cache Seekers.

 

It is no accident that Cache Owners are first in the list above as our hobby was started by a cache owner who later was able to participate as a Cache Seeker when others got involved; and the facilitator came on the scene in third place as the need for such became apparent.

 

I believe that each of these groups has certain obligations and have attempted to summarise (perhaps imperfectly) some of these below:

 

Cache Owners need to truthfully represent their cache to the facilitator in strict accord with any publishing guidelines set by the facilitator so that when the cache is published Cache Seekers are not misled into believing a cache is other than what it actually is in terms of legality, safety, and any other relevant matter. To this end, any significant hazards need to be identified near the top of the cache page.

 

Cache Seekers must TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY as well as considering the safety of others when seeking any cache whether Difficulty/Terrain category 1/1, 5/5, or anywhere between. This includes carrying out any additional research beyond the data on the cache page that may be necessary so that the seeker is as informed as possible about (a) the area into which they will be going and (B) any specialist equipment and/or personell support that may be needed to complete the finding and logging of the cache as safely as possible.

Additionally they must be prepared to communicate, in the most effective way possible, information about any discovered deficiency or inaccuracy in the provided cache information so that updated information is readily available to subsequent seekers.

 

The facilitator primarily provides a listing service to convey information between cache owners and cache seekers and, to a lesser extent, vice-versa. Their function is NOT to regulate the activity. However, for their own legal protection they may be obliged to provide guidelines so that Cache Owners are clear as to the information they need to supply and Cache Seekers are better able to judge the relevance of information provided by the Cache Owners.

(Those guidelines become part of the code of conduct within which I as a member of the community must work. – see the bolded portion of para 6 above)

Additionally, the facilitator provides a free membership for cache owners and seekers and also, to help cover the cost of providing their service, a paid membership with additional member benefits.

They also operate some geocaching-related business activities.

 

Now I'll come back to the two issues I identified earlier.

 

Legality:

Our facilitator has provided guidelines which if correctly followed by Cache Owners mean that Cache Seekers can be assured that a cache that is published has been placed with the permission of the land owner, whether that cache is on public or private property. That assurance also extends to the legality of access to the cache site.

If the Cache Owner has in any way what-so-ever mis-represented the legality of the permissions for cache placement, or regarding the access there-to, then I hold the cache owner responsible for that mis-representation – NOT the facilitator.

As a Cache Seeker, if I become aware of such a mis-representation then I have a responsibility to the community to report the facts to both the owner and the facilitator so that appropriate corrective action may be taken. This may, but does not necessarily have to, mean that the cache is archived.

Our facilitator has provided me with tools to do that so if I don't use them, I am at fault. (again: see the bolded protion of para 6 above)

 

Safety:

As a Cache Seeker I CHOOSE to pursue a cache.

I AM RESPONSIBLE for the judgement calls I make in so doing.

The ultimate responsibility is MINE if in that pursuit I take some action that gets me hurt (or worse).

It was MY bad decision(s) or MY mistaken action(s) that got me into trouble.

I AM THE ONE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN SAFETY and I also have a secondary responsiblility to any one in whose company I may be at the time.

 

[Please Note that I cannot, and do not attempt to, speak for or in connection with Willi here – I simply state the case as I believe it applies to me. If it causes hurt to anyone I apologise as that is not my intention.]

 

I guess what I'm saying here is that I believe that we each have a responsibility for safety; first to ourselves; and then to those around us.

While this thinking can be extended to our everyday activity too, in the context of this forum it has definite application to our hobby.

I would vigorously oppose, however, any suggestion that tried to resolve safety issues by restricting the choices that geocachers have to pursue legally placed caches of any D/T level.

 

I endorse efforts made by Snoogans to bring the safety message forward. Our world-wide community has members of all ages; some with years of real-life-experience to guide them in their decision making; some with a very limited experience base.

Any activity that is directed towards educating our less-safety-aware community members so that they can if they wish tackle a 5/5 cache safely and successfully gets a thumbs-up from me.

 

In his initial post, veit asked:

… … … how can we avoid this in the future?

I do not believe that we can avoid serious incidents where risk may be involved except by preventing or seriously curtailing the activity.

 

What I believe is that with appropriate collective action we may be able to significantly reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future.

 

Three steps towards achieving this are, I believe:

 

1. As Cache Owners ensure that any cache we have published truly meets the Groundspeak guidelines, particularly with regard to legality, before it is submitted for publishing.

 

2. As Cache Seekers ensure that any cache that is found to fall short of those guidelines is brought to the attention of both the owner and our facilitator so that appropriate remedial action can occur.

 

3. Support, to the best of our abillity, any intitiative that is directed towards the safety awareness education of our less-experienced members when ever an opportunity presents itself to do so.

 

I believe that these three steps could be the first steps in improving our image as an organisation and reducing the risk of serious incidents in the future and, in part at least, answer veit's initial question.

Link to comment
Is that really so much to ask for? Are you really giving up so much of your freedom that this is an impossible request?

You obviously feel passionately about this issue. Perhaps you should make your voice heard on the warning-logs feature suggestion thread where, other than the OP, you would be the only supporter.

Link to comment
Either they will acknowledge the existing warnings or they will dismiss them.... But I do know that, no matter where [Willi] would fit, more warnings wouldn't have helped.

FWIW, I'm not entirely sure this is true. I've seen how other information on this web site can be missed or misconstrued when it's not designed well from a UI standpoint. I'm not quite as positive as you are that Willi's outcome simply comes down to whether he is the type of person who dismisses warnings or heeds them.

 

I suspect it's a little more involved than that.

Link to comment

Nope. Not restructuring. That's true. Just redundant.

A cache that already had half a dozen warnings won't really benefit from a seventh.

Either a potential seeker will look at the cache page or they won't..

 

Not true.

 

Right now, there's no way for me to know of any user logged warnings that can be buried in the hundreds of logs unless I read each and every log on each and every cache prior to finding them.

 

That's both ridiculous and unrealistic.

 

If we could have these *warning* logs be a clickable log, or a user assigned clickable attribute, that I can click and read prior to my search, it would be helpful.

 

 

It is not ridiculous nor unrealistic if you know that you are going to look for a highly risky cache (which you'd know by the terrain rating, in this case). In that case, you *should* read each and every log, and not simply depend on the assumption that everybody that noticed something dangerous posted a warning log about it. To make that assumption could be fatal. How many times will you read in a log about the cache needing some sort of maintenance, yet they didn't post a NM log?

 

This isnt bubble wrapping the world. That's such a lame argument that many have made in this thread. This is making warnings easily viewable, and helping preventing accidents, and possible deaths.

It would, however, be giving cachers a false sense of security. Just because you don't see any warning logs does not mean the cache is safe! Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

 

You obviously feel passionately about this issue. Perhaps you should make your voice heard on the warning-logs feature suggestion thread where, other than the OP, you would be the only supporter.

 

Hey thanks for the information.

I don't often venture into that section of the forum and I was unaware that the warning-log was under discussion there.

To save others searching for the thread, it can be found HERE.

Link to comment
Right now, there's no way for me to know of any user logged warnings that can be buried in the hundreds of logs unless I read each and every log on each and every cache prior to finding them.

 

That's both ridiculous and unrealistic.

 

No. Not really. Let's look at both those words, as applied to this scenario:

 

"Ridiculous" is when someone goes after a cache with obvious hazards and decides, for whatever reason, not to make use of every available resource. For instance, this cache in particular. The resources Willi had available include the cache page, which would have told him about the hole. The past logs which would have told him where the hole was and that he could fall through it. The terrain rating, which would have told him this was a particularly challenging cache, one where he needed to be focused.

 

"Unrealistic" is when some mook tries to stretch 36 logs into "hundreds"

 

As it stands-I have NO way of knowing if there was a user logged warning, unless it's the in the last 5 logs, and I'm stumped and then read those last 5 logs.

 

OK. That is your choice. If you wander blithely into hazardous conditions, then there really is no way to save you. Darwin awaits, and he never sleeps. I have no problem with going clueless after a P&G, but for a cache in such an obviously hazardous location, I'm going to read every log. If I choose to increase the degree of hazard even further, by doing it at night, in freezing conditions, all alone, I am going to review everything I can prior to making the attempt. When you play in hazardous locations, you can either be prepared or you can be a victim. Since you are unwilling to review all the available data prior to attempting a hazardous cache, I really can't help you.

 

But hey, let's all go on believing that anything that will be helpful to others is bubble wrapping, or infringing on our rights, or admitting that were stupid, or asking someone else to get involved, or bucking the status quo, or whatever excuse we need to make.

Wow... Such angst. Sarcasm is an art form, if done properly.

Sadly, you are not an artist. :(

 

As a Cache Seeker I CHOOSE to pursue a cache.

I AM RESPONSIBLE for the judgement calls I make in so doing.

The ultimate responsibility is MINE if in that pursuit I take some action that gets me hurt (or worse).

It was MY bad decision(s) or MY mistaken action(s) that got me into trouble.

I AM THE ONE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN SAFETY

Dude! Surely you aren't promoting something as silly as personal accountability as applied to geocaching... Are you? Just wait till the Bubble Wrap Police get hold of you. That's crazy talk, man! :lol:

 

(See Jes, that's how it's done. Not judgin', just sayin')

Link to comment

 

You obviously feel passionately about this issue. Perhaps you should make your voice heard on the warning-logs feature suggestion thread where, other than the OP, you would be the only supporter.

 

Hey thanks for the information.

I don't often venture into that section of the forum and I was unaware that the warning-log was under discussion there.

To save others searching for the thread, it can be found HERE.

 

Thanks. I didn't know about that thread either.

 

 

To Clan, <deleted, You're not worth it...I'll keep the Meh and yawn though...>

Edited by JesandTodd
Link to comment

Our world-wide community has members of all ages; some with years of real-life-experience to guide them in their decision making; some with a very limited experience base.

Any activity that is directed towards educating our less-safety-aware community members so that they can if they wish tackle a 5/5 cache safely and successfully gets a thumbs-up from me.

 

In his initial post, veit asked:

… … … how can we avoid this in the future?

I do not believe that we can avoid serious incidents where risk may be involved except by preventing or seriously curtailing the activity.

 

What I believe is that with appropriate collective action we may be able to significantly reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future.

 

Three steps towards achieving this are, I believe:

 

1. As Cache Owners ensure that any cache we have published truly meets the Groundspeak guidelines, particularly with regard to legality, before it is submitted for publishing.

 

2. As Cache Seekers ensure that any cache that is found to fall short of those guidelines is brought to the attention of both the owner and our facilitator so that appropriate remedial action can occur.

 

3. Support, to the best of our abillity, any intitiative that is directed towards the safety awareness education of our less-experienced members when ever an opportunity presents itself to do so.

 

I believe that these three steps could be the first steps in improving our image as an organisation and reducing the risk of serious incidents in the future and, in part at least, answer veit's initial question.

 

 

Excellent post Ronbu and thanks for the support. I appreciate that.

 

 

Our world-wide community has members of all ages; some with years of real-life-experience to guide them in their decision making; some with a very limited experience base.

Any activity that is directed towards educating our less-safety-aware community members so that they can if they wish tackle a 5/5 cache safely and successfully gets a thumbs-up from me.

I believe Willimax's age/life experience may have been factor in his death strictly based on my own experiences at that age.

 

I lost a friend at that age (21) and I sat down and tried to fill a page (college ruled) of every significant thing I had learned or could remember year by year. My experience, at 21, didn't fill that page. That self-realization turned me down a different road in my life.

 

If anything good comes from Willi's death, I hope it's as an example to other cachers in his age group to think clearly about the risks they are taking and to approach risks that they find acceptable in a smarter and safer manner.

 

2. As Cache Seekers ensure that any cache that is found to fall short of those guidelines is brought to the attention of both the owner and our facilitator so that appropriate remedial action can occur.

 

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

 

3. Support, to the best of our abillity, any intitiative that is directed towards the safety awareness education of our less-experienced members when ever an opportunity presents itself to do so.

 

I believe that these three steps could be the first steps in improving our image as an organisation and reducing the risk of serious incidents in the future and, in part at least, answer veit's initial question.

Yes SIR! That has been my essential message all along. I'm only a little surprised at the resistance to it, but I do believe that eventually Groundspeak will facilitate increased awareness for geocaching safety in time.

Link to comment

 

Nope. Not restructuring. That's true. Just redundant.

A cache that already had half a dozen warnings won't really benefit from a seventh.

Either a potential seeker will look at the cache page or they won't..

 

Not true.

 

Right now, there's no way for me to know of any user logged warnings that can be buried in the hundreds of logs unless I read each and every log on each and every cache prior to finding them.

 

That's both ridiculous and unrealistic.

 

If we could have these *warning* logs be a clickable log, or a user assigned clickable attribute, that I can click and read prior to my search, it would be helpful.

 

Maybe not to you (hey, fantastic) but it would be for me. if I'm heading out to a cache alone, and I see that there are 3 warning logs., you bet your you-know-what I'm going to read them. I do not read all the logs prior to finding the cache. I do read the cache page. Things change. Environments change, COs fall out of this game...this is a user log that is easily accessible and viewable.

 

Is that really so hard?

 

As it stands-I have NO way of knowing if there was a user logged warning, unless it's the in the last 5 logs, and I'm stumped and then read those last 5 logs.

 

{Warning-hey, there's a huge hole in this bridge, be careful!}

 

Is that really so much to ask for? Are you really giving up so much of your freedom that this is an impossible request?

 

This isnt bubble wrapping the world. That's such a lame argument that many have made in this thread. This is making warnings easily viewable, and helping preventing accidents, and possible deaths.

 

But hey, let's all go on believing that anything that will be helpful to others is bubble wrapping, or infringing on our rights, or admitting that were stupid, or asking someone else to get involved, or bucking the status quo, or whatever excuse we need to make.

 

I agree.

 

Nobody is trying to force anyone to do anything safely, or to bubblewrap the world. They are only asking for tools to make it easier to identify hazards, if they choose to do so.

 

Nobody has asked for unsafe caches to be archived either, only for caches which are illegal to access.

 

I think safety events would work out well. Every terrain 5 cache requires some form of safety. The cachers could go over safety techniques for an hour or 2, and then go out and tackle a rappelling, boating, or extreme hiking cache.

 

There is a very large difference between making safety hazards easier to identify, and bubble wrapping the world to force safety on people. Leaving a choice available to do things your own way is what everyone wants.

Link to comment

I'm curious. How many 5/5 caches that adhere to the guidelines are published without proper warnings? How many give proper warnings? And how many give some, but not quite adequate warnings?

 

I'm not really good at data mining for this type of information. But I think if someone were to do this it might help to determine just how bad or not so bad the situation really is.

 

My guess is that most of them probably already include warnings.

 

But if someone were to take on this project and discover that in fact a large percentage do not, then I would probably support the proposed safety forums and safety sessions for events.

 

Anyone up to the task?

Link to comment

The resources Willi had available include the cache page, which would have told him about the hole. The past logs which would have told him where the hole was and that he could fall through it. The terrain rating, which would have told him this was a particularly challenging cache, one where he needed to be focused.

 

All of what you are saying is true.

But, what is so 'wrong' of wanting all that information to be 'easier' for people to get to?

I don't see how having a way to quickly and easily get safety or warning information from previous finders to be a bad thing.

As the system is now a finder is able to give a written warning for others in their 'found it' log. I do not deny that. But look at this event. Only about 6% of the available logs contained warnings. Why not have a system where a future cache seeker can with a simple mouse click have those warnings all listed together without needing to read through that other 94% of the logs?

Link to comment

What I find most horrible is that the cache was placed near the gap and there was no 'BE CAREFUL-GAP IN BRIDGE FLOOR' on the cache page.

 

I definatley don't think the placement was malicious, but you have to wonder sometimes how a CO could have such little common sense.

 

Worse yet, none of the 34 finders had the common sense to report the danger and get something done about it. Shame on them. :mad:

 

These are the caches I object to. The ones where the CO brings someone to an place with an unusual or unexpected danger. When there are plenty of safer alternatives nearby. Even If the CO puts a warning on the cache page (which someone might easily miss), WHY put a cache there? Why put people's lives at unecessary risk?

 

Put the dadgum cache elsewhere.

 

Some people don't WANT "safe".

 

Being willing to risk your own personal safety is one thing.

 

Putting other people in danger is another.

 

I don't personally object to caches where the danger is obvious, there are ways to do it safely (such as with equipment) and clear warnings are given.

 

(knock on wood)

 

I usually watch where I am walking, especially at night and that high above the ground. I am NOT excusing the permission issue but I also think the CO is getting a raw deal on comments here (outside of the "should you hide" question). The dead cacher has just as much blame as far as I am concerned. Don't mistake that for not feeling bad..

Link to comment

Take another look at this picture and tell me you are sure the cacher fell through the hole where the flooring is missing.

 

gr_2941863_3.jpg

 

Are you sure he didn't fall over the side. Did he lean over to grab the cache container and lose his balance and fall next to the I-beam? Had he already logged the cache and was heading back down when he fell? And for those who enjoy a good mystery novel - was he really alone? Was it a suicide? Will anyone ever know for sure what happened?

 

Just a few things to consider.

 

John

Link to comment

Do you honestly think that anything posted here will stop someone from getting hurt? People get hurt because they didn't think. End of story. sSig_2cents.gif

 

I am being perfectly honest here when I say the warning would have encouraged ME to conquer the cache. Would I have done it alone at night? perhaps not. But I still would have put that cache tops on my list to complete.

Link to comment

It is with a great feeling of sadness for the relatives and friends of Willi that I read of his tragic death. Although I knew him not, I do know that the loss of a member of one's circle is always keenly felt.

 

It is, however, heartening to see that his death has made some members of our Geocaching Community, of which he was part, stop to consider how similar tragic events can be mimimised in the future.

An excellent, thoughtful post. Thanks Ronbu, for taking the time to share it with us.

 

Link to comment

But look at this event.

 

When you look at this event you see the cache should never have been listed.

 

What good would a warning log have done? Every single one of those cachers had an opportunity to log a Needs Archival log but didn't.

 

Some people don't want to assign blame. But I am going to assign some anyway.

 

Butters0815, E-mInE & Xter44 should never have placed that cache since it did not meet the guidelines. Furthermore, instead of telling people to avoid getting caught, they should have clearly noted the missing section of decking instead of burying that information in the hint.

 

Any one of the finders listed on that cache should have reported that cache. Perhaps one or two were unaware that it was off limits to unauthorized personnel. But the rest knew that it was improperly placed.

 

And finally, Willi himself should have taken the time to read the logs. I suspect that he did. I suspect Willi was probably well aware of the dangers he faced that night. I also suspect that even in the face of all this knowledge, Willi still decided he was up to the challenge.

 

Who knows why he fell through that grate? We don't know.

 

As far as I am concerned, when all is said and done, Willi died doing something he loved. His death, while tragic, is no worse than that of any skydiver, scuba diver, or rock climber doing what they love.

Link to comment
Either they will acknowledge the existing warnings or they will dismiss them.... But I do know that, no matter where [Willi] would fit, more warnings wouldn't have helped.

FWIW, I'm not entirely sure this is true. I've seen how other information on this web site can be missed or misconstrued when it's not designed well from a UI standpoint. I'm not quite as positive as you are that Willi's outcome simply comes down to whether he is the type of person who dismisses warnings or heeds them.

 

I suspect it's a little more involved than that.

You're probably right. It likely is a lot more involved, and that was poorly worded on my part. What I was trying to express was a more general observation, geared more toward the types of attitudes people bring to this game, than any speculation about Willi himself.

 

In general, someone who tiptoes through the tulips of life, utterly clueless about those aspects of our world that can cause harm, will not pay any particular attention to existing warnings, assuming they were added just to make the cache feel more dangerous. I've experienced this first hand on one of my night caches, Blatantly Obvious. This is a couple miles of pure bushwhacking, with at least one section going through a swamp that is nipple deep on a Riffster. Following an event near the starting coords, I offered to take folks on a guided tour. There was one cacher who accompanied us, bringing their small child with them. Prior to leaving, I explained the hazards in a safety briefing. This cacher dismissed every single warning, explaining to their child that I was just being dramatic. I tried my hardest to convince her that this was a cache that can kill the unwary, but they simply did not believe me. I had to babysit them through the entire trip. In this case, the 8 year old had much more sense than the adult. If you don't believe the warnings, adding more won't help.

 

Another problematic attitude I've encountered are the egotistical cachers, so certain of their own abilities and skills that they scorn petty little things like warnings that are already on a cache page. Based on my personal experience in the field, I would say these folks are the ones most likely to be injured, as they don't take the existing warnings seriously, presuming instead that they are "manly" enough to tackle any hazard, and being ego driven, often seek out those caches which have an element of danger. Folks in this group won't suddenly change their attitude because someone added a new warning amongst all the others.

 

A third at risk group are those folks who are unable to properly evaluate hazards. If these folks don't read the cache page, obviously they'll never see the warnings, and they will show up at ground zero with nothing but a cache name and a set of coords. At that point, they would need to assess the location for general hazards. If they can't determine that a metal, elevated structure, over a shallow, boulder strewn creek, at night, in freezing temperatures, has potential hazards, adding warnings to the cache page won't help. If they do read the cache page, and they are unable to determine from the information provided, that this cache could prove dangerous, they could arrive at ground zero without any idea that their lives might be at risk. Once there, if they still fail to properly evaluate the hazards on site, having more warnings on the cache page won't help.

 

Then there are those folks who believe that their lives and their health are assets worthy of protection. I like to think that I usually fall into this group, but there are times when I've found myself in the other groups. This attitude is the one most likely to be aided by warnings on a cache page. Members of this group tend to not dash willy nilly from cache to cache, mindlessly following the arrow. These folks like to read cache pages, because they have learned, over time, that there is often information on the page worth knowing. As a member of this group, one of my first reactions was to look at the cache page. At a glance, I knew this was a location which merited caution. The fact that it is a fairly high terrain, on an elevated platform, with a hole that the hider felt was important enough to mention, would cause me to dig deeper, reading every single log before setting out to find it. The logs talking about the hole being in the walkway, in a place where an experienced cacher could easily fall through it would have been a red flag for me, practically screaming, "Danger Will Robinson!". If, at that point, I decided to continue, and for some reason I had to do it at night, during freezing temperatures, without a spotter, I would have been on full alert. If, for some reason, I was unable to see my feet, (unwilling to use a light/too much glare/etc), I would use extra caution placing my feet, sliding them forward, ensuring I had a stable base before shifting my weight from my back foot to my front foot, because, by this point, I know there is a hole in the walkway big enough for me to fall through, and I know my vision is impaired. Since I am already aware of the particular hazards, and I am already on full alert, (as any conscientious cacher should be by this point), adding additional warnings won't help.

Link to comment
But, what is so 'wrong' of wanting all that information to be 'easier' for people to get to?

I don't see how having a way to quickly and easily get safety or warning information from previous finders to be a bad thing.

I wouldn't say it's wrong, nor would I say it's a bad thing. My only argument would be that it is redundant. One group I neglected to mention in my earlier post are those folks who are fairly conscientious, but only delve for information when they think they need it. For instance, say I'm going from cache to cache, just following my arrow, and I arrive at a site such as this one. As soon as I look at the site, I'm going to want as much information as I could possibly get, before I make the attempt, as I would recognize that site as being hazardous. Now assume that the hider was not fairly diligent, and did not add warnings to the cache page. The D/T would be misstated, the hole would go unmentioned and there is nothing in the last five logs mentioning it. We would need to include the assumption that, though I know it's dangerous, and I was not given sufficient data by the hider, I would somehow toss due diligence to the wayside, not paying attention to my surroundings.

 

In that hypothetical scenario, being able to click a button on my Oregon, displaying any available warning logs, might come in handy, if I were the type of person who heeded such warnings.

 

Adding this function to a cache page could, conceivably, be fairly easy, from a code writer point of view. But to be effective, it would need to be accessible to everyone, regardless of how they acquire their data. The PQ system would need to be rewriten, changing the internal process for what data is included in an individual .gpx file, as well as an individual .loc file, so that any "Warning" logs accompanied the cache page data. The iPhone app would have to be rewritten, so that data would be included. As would any other apps, both Groundspeak approved or other, third party apps, such as Geosphere.

 

I think it could be done, but I doubt it would be as easy as some like to infer.

Link to comment

The resources Willi had available include the cache page, which would have told him about the hole. The past logs which would have told him where the hole was and that he could fall through it. The terrain rating, which would have told him this was a particularly challenging cache, one where he needed to be focused.

 

All of what you are saying is true.

But, what is so 'wrong' of wanting all that information to be 'easier' for people to get to?

I don't see how having a way to quickly and easily get safety or warning information from previous finders to be a bad thing.

As the system is now a finder is able to give a written warning for others in their 'found it' log. I do not deny that. But look at this event. Only about 6% of the available logs contained warnings. Why not have a system where a future cache seeker can with a simple mouse click have those warnings all listed together without needing to read through that other 94% of the logs?

 

What is wrong with that, as I pointed out earlier, is that it would give a false sense of security. If you are going to go after a risky cache, you owe it to yourself to do all the research first, and not simply hope that the previous finders have posted the proper hazard logs. Get all the information you can before heading out, and if you don't read each and every log, you are simply not doing your job.

Link to comment

Do you honestly think that anything posted here will stop someone from getting hurt? People get hurt because they didn't think. End of story. sSig_2cents.gif

 

I am being perfectly honest here when I say the warning would have encouraged ME to conquer the cache. Would I have done it alone at night? perhaps not. But I still would have put that cache tops on my list to complete.

 

No matter the warnings, I'll still twist my ankles, tweak my knees, get smacked in the eyes by a wayward branch and trip and fall. I'll get scraped up, skinned up and bruised. All of these can be avoided but will they? Nope. Because I'll be distracted doing something else and wam! It ain't called a 'purpose'. It's called an accident.

Link to comment
having more warnings on the cache page won't help

I think those four types of cachers likely do exist, but I also think there are others who are conscientious but fallable, or for whom reading many hours' worth of logs in some cases may be impractical.* I'm well-intentioned and I care about safety. I certainly feel responsible for my own, and for that of my kids. But sometimes I could use some help. Highlighting important information that might otherwise be lost amid hundreds of logs could be helpful. Not for all cachers - the particularly uncareful will continue to ignore, and the particularly fastidious will read every log with great comprehension without trouble. But I'm neither; I care, and I worry about missing stuff.

 

I'm not convinced that there aren't better ways to highlight important information, or that doing so successfully would be worthless to all cachers.

 

* The average adult reads at 250 words per minute with 70% comprehension - for the first cache we ever placed, it would take more than 9 hours to read all of the logs

Link to comment
having more warnings on the cache page won't help

I think those four types of cachers likely do exist, but I also think there are others who are conscientious but fallable, or for whom reading many hours' worth of logs in some cases may be impractical.* I'm well-intentioned and I care about safety. I certainly feel responsible for my own, and for that of my kids. But sometimes I could use some help. Highlighting important information that might otherwise be lost amid hundreds of logs could be helpful. Not for all cachers - the particularly uncareful will continue to ignore, and the particularly fastidious will read every log with great comprehension without trouble. But I'm neither; I care, and I worry about missing stuff.

 

I'm not convinced that there aren't better ways to highlight important information, or that doing so successfully would be worthless to all cachers.

 

* The average adult reads at 250 words per minute with 70% comprehension - for the first cache we ever placed, it would take more than 9 hours to read all of the logs

Excellent post!! :cool:

Link to comment
having more warnings on the cache page won't help

I think those four types of cachers likely do exist, but I also think there are others who are conscientious but fallable, or for whom reading many hours' worth of logs in some cases may be impractical.* I'm well-intentioned and I care about safety. I certainly feel responsible for my own, and for that of my kids. But sometimes I could use some help. Highlighting important information that might otherwise be lost amid hundreds of logs could be helpful. Not for all cachers - the particularly uncareful will continue to ignore, and the particularly fastidious will read every log with great comprehension without trouble. But I'm neither; I care, and I worry about missing stuff.

 

I'm not convinced that there aren't better ways to highlight important information, or that doing so successfully would be worthless to all cachers.

 

* The average adult reads at 250 words per minute with 70% comprehension - for the first cache we ever placed, it would take more than 9 hours to read all of the logs

Excellent post!! :cool:

 

I agree.

Link to comment

Using reverse engineering a dangerous cache could be easily created. Use a terrain rating of 1.5 and place it near a giant hole. The cache listing could have plenty of warnings on the page, but plenty of people would just download the coords anyway and go to it without reading the page, or the logs.If it was available at night that would be even worse..

 

Something like that should have a user applied "danger" attribute which could not be easily overlooked.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Take another look at this picture and tell me you are sure the cacher fell through the hole where the flooring is missing.

 

gr_2941863_3.jpg

 

Are you sure he didn't fall over the side. Did he lean over to grab the cache container and lose his balance and fall next to the I-beam? Had he already logged the cache and was heading back down when he fell? And for those who enjoy a good mystery novel - was he really alone? Was it a suicide? Will anyone ever know for sure what happened?

 

Just a few things to consider.

 

I curious as to whether the missing grill is before or after the cache, from the appropriate starting point. It certainly looks on the far side, in the picture. That could be why it was not a major concern for the CO.

Link to comment

Using reverse engineering a dangerous cache could be easily created. Use a terrain rating of 1.5 and place it near a giant hole. The cache listing could have plenty of warnings on the page, but plenty of people would just download the coords anyway and go to it without reading the page, or the logs.If it was available at night that would be even worse..

 

Something like that should have a user applied "danger" attribute which could not be easily overlooked.

You mean, something like this? danger-yes.gif (That's the Dangerous Area attribute, which already exists)

Link to comment

Using reverse engineering a dangerous cache could be easily created. Use a terrain rating of 1.5 and place it near a giant hole. The cache listing could have plenty of warnings on the page, but plenty of people would just download the coords anyway and go to it without reading the page, or the logs.If it was available at night that would be even worse..

 

Something like that should have a user applied "danger" attribute which could not be easily overlooked.

You mean, something like this? danger-yes.gif (That's the Dangerous Area attribute, which already exists)

Yes. It could be colored red and be applied by other users, similar to a needs maintenance log. If you click it, the associated comments would appear.

 

It won't be able to prevent all accidents, but if it prevents a few, then it would be worth it.

Link to comment
having more warnings on the cache page won't help

I think those four types of cachers likely do exist, but I also think there are others who are conscientious but fallable, or for whom reading many hours' worth of logs in some cases may be impractical.* I'm well-intentioned and I care about safety. I certainly feel responsible for my own, and for that of my kids. But sometimes I could use some help. Highlighting important information that might otherwise be lost amid hundreds of logs could be helpful. Not for all cachers - the particularly uncareful will continue to ignore, and the particularly fastidious will read every log with great comprehension without trouble. But I'm neither; I care, and I worry about missing stuff.

 

I'm not convinced that there aren't better ways to highlight important information, or that doing so successfully would be worthless to all cachers.

 

* The average adult reads at 250 words per minute with 70% comprehension - for the first cache we ever placed, it would take more than 9 hours to read all of the logs

Excellent post!! :cool:

 

I agree.

Hard to argue with that.

 

Any thoughts toward implementation?

I know any suggestions we might generate would be entirely speculative, but we can still ponder...

 

Assuming worst case scenario; someone loading a PQ onto a GPSr that is not paperless. All they get is what is available in a .loc file. From a programmer's perspective, what could be added to a .loc file, which would tell those who bring up the cache on their GPSr, that this cache has posted warnings? Maybe a red ammo can instead of a green one? No, that wouldn't help those folks with monochrome screens. Maybe an ammo can with a big "W" embossed on it? Just thinking out loud. This would at least clue those who care about such things that they might want to dig a little deeper...

 

Should there be any cache owner allowed access to a seeker posted warning log? For instance, if I tell you on the cache page that there are large hungry alligators near ground zero, and I include the appropriate D/T ratings and attributes, should I have the option of deleting a warning post that says "There are alligators near ground zero"?

 

What about not having the posted date for a warning log affect where it goes in the que? They could be set to default to the top, so, as long as there are less than 6 warnings, they would be visible to anyone who is paperless?

Link to comment

Using reverse engineering a dangerous cache could be easily created. Use a terrain rating of 1.5 and place it near a giant hole. The cache listing could have plenty of warnings on the page, but plenty of people would just download the coords anyway and go to it without reading the page, or the logs.If it was available at night that would be even worse..

 

Something like that should have a user applied "danger" attribute which could not be easily overlooked.

You mean, something like this? danger-yes.gif (That's the Dangerous Area attribute, which already exists)

Yes. It could be colored red and be applied by other users, similar to a needs maintenance log. If you click it, the associated comments would appear.

 

It won't be able to prevent all accidents, but if it prevents a few, then it would be worth it.

 

That attribute already exists! This is exactly why I say that it is the cacher's responsibility to gather AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE on a risky cache, and not simply rely on an attribute or a certain log type to be posted.

Link to comment
You mean, something like this? danger-yes.gif

It's been way too long since I've used a non-paperless unit.

Do attributes show up on those?

 

No. They don't even show up on the Nuvi that I use for paperless info. One more reason that a cacher going after a high-risk cache needs to be prepared in advance. Gather all the information you can. Read the logs, and read between the lines in the logs. Look for attributes, but don't believe that a lack of attributes means something. To accept responsibility for yourself means doing what you need to do to be sure that you have covered all of your bases and not taken any shortcuts. But I know that you agree with me on this.

Link to comment
Should there be any cache owner allowed access to a seeker posted warning log? For instance, if I tell you on the cache page that there are large hungry alligators near ground zero, and I include the appropriate D/T ratings and attributes, should I have the option of deleting a warning post that says "There are alligators near ground zero"?
What about bogus warnings? Should cache owners be allowed to delete them? For example, if there is no poison oak anywhere near my cache, can I delete a warning that says, "WARNING: I got PO while geocaching today. 81 of 483"
Link to comment

In the Northwest Region of the forum in March of this year I raised the question "Why are cachers NOT using Attributes?". It was clear that some saw no point in them while others never thought about using them. We look at the attributes most of the time but would like it if the CO would explain a few of them.

 

In this case just having the icon for danger means very little unless you tell me what is so dangerous about the area. So I disagree with those that see using attributes as hand holding, but at the same time what is high risk for one person may be a walk in the park for another. And like the boy who cried wolf, if those warning icons get used too often then those that see no point in using them were right.

 

Unless the cacher is paying attention to their surroundings and what they are doing, then all the warnings in the world won't do any good.

 

Tobias

Edited by Tobias & Petronella
Link to comment
So I disagree with those that see using attributes as hand holding...

Tobias, I don't think anyone has made that argument. Rather, it seems that most folks have acknowledged that attributes are one of the many tools provided by Groundspeak for a cache owner to use to warn potential seekers of possible hazards at the cache location, among other things.

 

Though I do agree that if they are not applied properly, they become meeningless. As a seeker, I like to use attributes as sort of a wake up call, telling me, (in my best Fred Sanford voice), "Hey! You big dummy! Pay attention!". :lol:

Link to comment

So, they add this new attribute. I'd (if I ever hide a cache) put it there just to cover my butt. No matter what the real danger was. Ya' know, I'm pretty new to this hobby but I've never even looked at the attributes until ya'll mentioned them in this thread. Now do you really think anyone that is young is gonna' look?

 

My condolences for the family. The guy fell through a hole on an elevated catwalk at night, in an off limits area. Do you think he would of noticed an attribute warning?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...