Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
veit

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

Recommended Posts

Do you think he would of noticed an attribute warning?

I think that's the crux of the argument. There are folks who pay attention to such things, and there are folks who don't. For this particular cache, I would argue that an additional warning would not have been effective, for those who do pay attention to such things, as there were already plenty of warnings already.

 

It goes without saying that, for those who don't pay attention to such things, an additional warning would do nothing to limit accidents and/or injury.

 

But Addison did make a persuasive argument for Groundspeak adding the ability for seekers of a particular cache to be able to flag certain hazards to that cache page. For those caches which do have hazards, which the cache owner did not make note of, a warning might come in handy for those who pay attention to such things.

 

I do suspect you are correct about it being overused though.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

It should be able to be applied by other users. Some cachers don't use attributes, as mentioned.

 

It could also refer to the log associated with it.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

It should be able to be applied by other users. Some cachers don't use attributes, as mentioned.

 

It could also refer to the log associated with it.

 

When they start allowing cachers to assign attributes and post logs that cannot be moderated to our cache pages, then Groundspeak should change their TOU to acknowledge that the caches we hide no longer belong to us. At that point, Groundspeak should assume all responsibility for the caches we are hiding for THEM.

Share this post


Link to post
Any thoughts toward implementation?

I'm pretty leery about trying to implement something right now, when it's only been a couple of weeks and emotions are still running high. It can be painful to un-implement something, if we get it wrong.

 

I think it's possible that changes could help people, but I'm not convinced that two weeks after the fact we've got it figured out. The idea of special logs or flags driven by other cachers in the community (not just the CO) is interesting, for example, and something I keep returning to... But some of the issues that have been raised in this thread have been thought-provoking enough (who clears them, how does this affect liability, etc.) that I wouldn't be eager to roll something out until we've beat the ideas up a bit more.

 

I like the idea of helping those who want to be helped, but I also have a healthy respect for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

It should be able to be applied by other users. Some cachers don't use attributes, as mentioned.

 

It could also refer to the log associated with it.

 

When they start allowing cachers to assign attributes and post logs that cannot be moderated to our cache pages, then Groundspeak should change their TOU to acknowledge that the caches we hide no longer belong to us. At that point, Groundspeak should assume all responsibility for the caches we are hiding for THEM.

 

The "needs maintenance" attribute is already user applied. I don't think that adding another attribute is likely to determine that the cache page does not belong to you. Cache owners cannot delete valid find logs, so complete control is already relinquished. The attribute is only an extention of a log type. If the cache owner wishes to post a "safety clear" log to remove the attribute, I suppose that should be allowed. If it does get removed and there is an associated injury, it would further release Groundspeak from liability and point to the cache owner to be more responsible for their actions.

Share this post


Link to post

When they start allowing cachers to assign attributes and post logs that cannot be moderated to our cache pages, then Groundspeak should change their TOU to acknowledge that the caches we hide no longer belong to us. At that point, Groundspeak should assume all responsibility for the caches we are hiding for THEM.

 

The "needs maintenance" attribute is already user applied.

 

It is both ABUSED and CO removable.

 

I don't think that adding another attribute is likely to determine that the cache page does not belong to you. Cache owners cannot delete valid find logs, so complete control is already relinquished.

 

Actually, currently a CO can remove any log. If the log is determined to be a valid find log, then TPTB can reinstate it. But the CO does still retain moderation powers over all the logs on his listing.

 

The attribute is only an extention of a log type. If the cache owner wishes to post a "safety clear" log to remove the attribute, I suppose that should be allowed. If it does get removed and there is an associated injury, it would further release Groundspeak from liability and point to the cache owner to be more responsible for their actions.

 

As noted previously, the NM log has been widely abused and/or misapplied. And while it may appear to be simple to just post a safety clear log, if someone decides to start posting safety logs for roots, poison ivy, low hanging branches, etc. then it could become quite problematic. Add to this the suggestion currently in the Features subboard where the warning logtype would be both moved to the top of the page area and not be removable by the cache owner and this becomes a potential nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post

But Addison did make a persuasive argument for Groundspeak adding the ability for seekers of a particular cache to be able to flag certain hazards to that cache page. For those caches which do have hazards, which the cache owner did not make note of, a warning might come in handy for those who pay attention to such things.

 

I do suspect you are correct about it being overused though.

/quote]

The problem, as I see it is not that the flag may be overused, but that the flag will be relied on, and any cache without any flags will be assumed to be safe. I think that is a very dangerous assumption to make.

Share this post


Link to post

So, is there any downside for the CO, if the CO simply adds the danger-yes.gif Dangerous Area attribute to every cache, regardless of any actual danger?

 

That's basically the situation we have now in California, with the Proposition 65 warnings that are found everywhere, regardless of whether there's any actual danger.

Share this post


Link to post

So, is there any downside for the CO, if the CO simply adds the danger-yes.gif Dangerous Area attribute to every cache, regardless of any actual danger?

 

That's basically the situation we have now in California, with the Proposition 65 warnings that are found everywhere, regardless of whether there's any actual danger.

 

I only use it when there is a drop off in the area which is avoidable in the daylight but at night is another story. Do we need another attribute for danger only at night?

Share this post


Link to post

As noted previously, the NM log has been widely abused and/or misapplied. And while it may appear to be simple to just post a safety clear log, if someone decides to start posting safety logs for roots, poison ivy, low hanging branches, etc. then it could become quite problematic. Add to this the suggestion currently in the Features subboard where the warning logtype would be both moved to the top of the page area and not be removable by the cache owner and this becomes a potential nightmare.

 

The Needs Maintenance log abuse can be corrected by eliminating the input field to a predetermined list of choices:

-log wet

-log full

-no log

-container wet

-container damaged

 

The danger attribute could use an input field, but after a note appears prompting the cacher to acknowledge that it should be used only for a chance of serious injury or death. That would not eliminate the abuse, but greatly reduce it.

Share this post


Link to post

When they start allowing cachers to assign attributes and post logs that cannot be moderated to our cache pages, then Groundspeak should change their TOU to acknowledge that the caches we hide no longer belong to us. At that point, Groundspeak should assume all responsibility for the caches we are hiding for THEM.

I have already been told I can't delete logs because of an ALR. And though I can delete a Needs Maintenance and clear the attribute it sets, there is some record left (though it might only be visible to admins and reviewers). I will also note I can't opt out of favorite votes or being included on a public bookmark lists. I'd say if you define cache ownership based on the ability to delete log or place attributes, Groundspeak is already impinging on your ownership.

 

A new attribute may not be necessary. Those who want to warn others about dangerous caches can become a premium member and create a public bookmark list of dangerous caches. Of course this may have an undesired effect of encouraging people to take risk in order to claim a find caches on this list.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd say if you define cache ownership based on the ability to delete log or place attributes, Groundspeak is already impinging on your ownership.

 

Many would already agree with that statement for the precise reason you stated about ALRs.

 

Funny how one thing leads to another to yet another, isn't it?

 

A new attribute may not be necessary. Those who want to warn others about dangerous caches can become a premium member and create a public bookmark list of dangerous caches. Of course this may have an undesired effect of encouraging people to take risk in order to claim a find caches on this list.

 

Thanks for pointing out yet another tool that already exists.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that the attribute would necessarily be intended to keep people away from the cache, as I would be in the group of cachers that would specifically seek out such caches that are dangerous. :D

 

It would only communicate what hazards that are there, so that other cachers would be aware ahead of time and could arrive prepared. Whether it's a live hornets nest in a hollow tree, a 100 foot vertical drop, or an active meth lab nearby. Those warnings should not be buried, whereas someone would have to read every log to find them. Very few people read every log on a cache before they look for it. Clicking on a user applied skull and crossbones could open a box similar to a notepad, which would convey hazards that others have encountered.

 

I like dangerous caches. However I DO want to know what the danger is before I head out.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that the attribute would necessarily be intended to keep people away from the cache, as I would be in the group of cachers that would specifically seek out such caches that are dangerous. :D

 

It would only communicate what hazards that are there, so that other cachers would be aware ahead of time and could arrive prepared. Whether it's a live hornets nest in a hollow tree, a 100 foot vertical drop, or an active meth lab nearby. Those warnings should not be buried, whereas someone would have to read every log to find them. Very few people read every log on a cache before they look for it. Clicking on a user applied skull and crossbones could open a box similar to a notepad, which would convey hazards that others have encountered.

 

I like dangerous caches. However I DO want to know what the danger is before I head out.

 

At the risk of repeating what I have been repeating already... all that the attribute (an attribute that already exists, by the way) would to is to tell you that the attribute has been added. A cache that does not have the attribute is not necessarily a safe cache, but somebody sooner or later is bound to make that assumption.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that the attribute would necessarily be intended to keep people away from the cache, as I would be in the group of cachers that would specifically seek out such caches that are dangerous. :D

It would only communicate what hazards that are there, so that other cachers would be aware ahead of time and could arrive prepared. Whether it's a live hornets nest in a hollow tree, a 100 foot vertical drop, or an active meth lab nearby. Those warnings should not be buried, whereas someone would have to read every log to find them. Very few people read every log on a cache before they look for it. Clicking on a user applied skull and crossbones could open a box similar to a notepad, which would convey hazards that others have encountered.

One reason you might not want to change a cache name is because there may be a challenge cache where you need two (or more) caches with the exact same name in order to complete the challenge and log the find. If the cache owner changes the name of it, you wouldn't be able to complete the challenge, or if you did log it, it would make your find null and void. There is one here in MN that I know of, and I'm sure there are more in other states.

I like dangerous caches. However I DO want to know what the danger is before I head out.

At the risk of repeating what I have been repeating already... all that the attribute (an attribute that already exists, by the way) would to is to tell you that the attribute has been added. A cache that does not have the attribute is not necessarily a safe cache, but somebody sooner or later is bound to make that assumption.

If they want to assume that, that's fine. You cannot prevent all accidents, but if it prevents a few, then that's plenty.

 

I am well aware that the attribute already exists. It should be improved upon IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that the attribute would necessarily be intended to keep people away from the cache, as I would be in the group of cachers that would specifically seek out such caches that are dangerous. :D

It would only communicate what hazards that are there, so that other cachers would be aware ahead of time and could arrive prepared. Whether it's a live hornets nest in a hollow tree, a 100 foot vertical drop, or an active meth lab nearby. Those warnings should not be buried, whereas someone would have to read every log to find them. Very few people read every log on a cache before they look for it. Clicking on a user applied skull and crossbones could open a box similar to a notepad, which would convey hazards that others have encountered.

One reason you might not want to change a cache name is because there may be a challenge cache where you need two (or more) caches with the exact same name in order to complete the challenge and log the find. If the cache owner changes the name of it, you wouldn't be able to complete the challenge, or if you did log it, it would make your find null and void. There is one here in MN that I know of, and I'm sure there are more in other states.

I like dangerous caches. However I DO want to know what the danger is before I head out.

At the risk of repeating what I have been repeating already... all that the attribute (an attribute that already exists, by the way) would to is to tell you that the attribute has been added. A cache that does not have the attribute is not necessarily a safe cache, but somebody sooner or later is bound to make that assumption.

If they want to assume that, that's fine. You cannot prevent all accidents, but if it prevents a few, then that's plenty.

 

I am well aware that the attribute already exists. It should be improved upon IMHO.

 

I think what he is saying is what if it CAUSES a few additional accidents.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it would cause accidents. If you clicked on the skull and crossbones and a box opened up to reveal warning notes from previous cachers, that would be a good thing. Overall it would encourage communication about hazards. A false sense of safety is inevitable to occur despite what you do. The goal should be to reduce the accident rate, as elimination of all accidents can not be possible.

Share this post


Link to post

Just explaining what I "think" his argument is. I don't necessarily agree with that particular argument, though I can see the rationale for it.

Share this post


Link to post

What needs to change? Not one dad blasted thing, as well explained numerous times here. The trouble with requiring all dangers be listed is that you then create the inevitable situation of the CO forgetting to list one and the seeker thus assuming all is well. You should already assume hidden dangers are there and act accordingly. Saddens me to see all the well meaning but misguided "Solutions" being proposed in here.

Share this post


Link to post

The images:

 

note the missing grille:

 

gr_2941863_3.jpg

 

 

The missing grille and caching at night is an accident waiting to happen. Knowing myself, I would done it, but I wonder if I would see the missing grille on time in the dark.

 

On the picture you see that the missing grille is not over the water of the river, but over the meadow in front of it. It is not clear to me if falling through the hole in the picture was the cause of death.

 

However, caches on dangerous territory must not be combined with searching at night. Reviewers must not allow such caches. Therefore, the people who wrote, nothing needs to change, did make very stupid and inappropiate comments!

 

Best wishes

Share this post


Link to post

We don't know what occurred. If it was only 20 feet, he may have jumped. A six foot person hanging down from it would have been only 12 feet off the ground. In the dark that may have seemed much less. I used to jump off my 8 foot garage roof frequently when I was 15 or so.

 

Being that it was illegal activity, gives geocaching a black eye, and is most likely the reason why he chose to go at night.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

However, caches on dangerous territory must not be combined with searching at night. Reviewers must not allow such caches. Therefore, the people who wrote, nothing needs to change, did make very stupid and inappropiate comments!

 

I disagree about dangerous caches at night. There are actually caches in dangerous territory that is are quite appropriate to search for at night. Caves come to mind immediately.

 

I don't think anyone has said nothing needs to change. Obviously this cache was published and found repeatedly even though it should be obvious to anyone that it was placed illegally.

 

The fact that no one reported it points to there needing to be change.

 

What I and others HAVE said though is that there are already guidelines and tools in place that are not being utilized. Fix that and then if there's still a problem, let's add a bunch more tools and rules.

 

BTW, you know that photo is at an angle, right? You see grass because you're looking out toward the side. You can't tell from that photo what is directly beneath the structure.

Edited by GeoBain

Share this post


Link to post

The images:

 

note the missing grille:

 

gr_2941863_3.jpg

 

 

The missing grille and caching at night is an accident waiting to happen. Knowing myself, I would done it, but I wonder if I would see the missing grille on time in the dark.

 

On the picture you see that the missing grille is not over the water of the river, but over the meadow in front of it. It is not clear to me if falling through the hole in the picture was the cause of death.

 

However, caches on dangerous territory must not be combined with searching at night. Reviewers must not allow such caches. Therefore, the people who wrote, nothing needs to change, did make very stupid and inappropiate comments!

 

Best wishes

 

 

Buddy, you are not in the position to argue about what reviewers SHOULDN'T allow, since you have placed caches that are not according to guidelines yourself...

And concerning saying nothing needs to change...you see how stuff like that affected the TD series.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that the attribute would necessarily be intended to keep people away from the cache, as I would be in the group of cachers that would specifically seek out such caches that are dangerous. :D

It would only communicate what hazards that are there, so that other cachers would be aware ahead of time and could arrive prepared. Whether it's a live hornets nest in a hollow tree, a 100 foot vertical drop, or an active meth lab nearby. Those warnings should not be buried, whereas someone would have to read every log to find them. Very few people read every log on a cache before they look for it. Clicking on a user applied skull and crossbones could open a box similar to a notepad, which would convey hazards that others have encountered.

One reason you might not want to change a cache name is because there may be a challenge cache where you need two (or more) caches with the exact same name in order to complete the challenge and log the find. If the cache owner changes the name of it, you wouldn't be able to complete the challenge, or if you did log it, it would make your find null and void. There is one here in MN that I know of, and I'm sure there are more in other states.

I like dangerous caches. However I DO want to know what the danger is before I head out.

At the risk of repeating what I have been repeating already... all that the attribute (an attribute that already exists, by the way) would to is to tell you that the attribute has been added. A cache that does not have the attribute is not necessarily a safe cache, but somebody sooner or later is bound to make that assumption.

If they want to assume that, that's fine. You cannot prevent all accidents, but if it prevents a few, then that's plenty.

 

I am well aware that the attribute already exists. It should be improved upon IMHO.

 

I can't help but feel that you are missing my point, or that I am not making my point well enough. My point is that a Danger log type and/or the presence or lack of the Danger attribute are both dangerous shortcuts leading only to a false sense of security. The ONLY way that a cacher can be as sure as possible that there are no posted, known dangers is to read all of the logs for himself. There is no other way, and even that is not 100%.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it would cause accidents. If you clicked on the skull and crossbones and a box opened up to reveal warning notes from previous cachers, that would be a good thing. Overall it would encourage communication about hazards. A false sense of safety is inevitable to occur despite what you do. The goal should be to reduce the accident rate, as elimination of all accidents can not be possible.

 

And if you clicked on it and it didn't open up to reveal any warning notes? What then?

Share this post


Link to post

 

snip%<... a bunch

 

BTW, you know that photo is at an angle, right? You see grass because you're looking out toward the side. You can't tell from that photo what is directly beneath the structure.

 

I read that part and was glad to see you already caught it! At the bottom right corner you can see the water edge on the far side of the river. No doubt it is at least closer towards the gap.

 

One thing I've been wondering... lots have mentioned the red item as being the cache, can anyone confirm that it is the cache (or part)? It does seem a likely choice.

 

GB I'm going to ask another unrelated question if I may... the articles mention finding his 'effects' and tools. Does anyone know where they were located? In the river loose? In pockets? Distributed between the landing point and the catwalk area? All on the catwalk? That information could make quite a difference in analysis of what happened.

 

Thanks

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post
GB I'm going to ask another unrelated question if I may... the articles mention finding his 'effects' and tools. Does anyone know where they were located? In the river loose? In pockets? Distributed between the landing point and the catwalk area? All on the catwalk? That information could make quite a difference in analysis of what happened.

Oh no, not more ghoulish dissection of the dead guy's misadventure. Are you enjoying this?

 

The facts of this particular case may be important to those players most closely involved (the local caching community, the CO and the reviewer), in order to make sense of their loss, but not to us here on the general forum - certainly not 16 pages into the discussion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
GB I'm going to ask another unrelated question if I may... the articles mention finding his 'effects' and tools. Does anyone know where they were located? In the river loose? In pockets? Distributed between the landing point and the catwalk area? All on the catwalk? That information could make quite a difference in analysis of what happened.

Oh no, not more ghoulish dissection of the dead guy's misadventure. Are you enjoying this?

 

The facts of this particular case may be important to those players most closely involved (the local caching community, the CO and the reviewer), in order to make sense of their loss, but not to us here on the general forum - certainly not 16 pages into the discussion anyway.

 

Asking for clarification of facts in evidence is ghoulish... I don't think so. 16 pages of wild speculation and idea gathering may well be. There are many statements made here that bear NO weight on anything at all other than discussion. I have been involved in investigation of 'accidents' etc. in many activities and simply asked for facts. Not gory details at length or speculation.

Sorry about that, you can return to speculating and making random comments now. Maybe pick out some of the inaccuracies that people have stated as fact rather than speculation or guesses.

 

Doug 7rxc

Share this post


Link to post

Except that, it lies within human nature to be interested in these things.

How is that your problem?

Share this post


Link to post

 

And if you clicked on it and it didn't open up to reveal any warning notes? What then?

Well I would proceed as usual with a normal sense of alertness. I would not think 'oh this cache is completely safe let me put this blindfold on and head to the GZ because nothing can hurt me' which is what you seem to be implying will happen.

 

Currently if a cache does not have a poison ivy attribute checked I do not assume that there is no possible way I may encounter poison ivy, I still will look for it. Maybe it wasn't there when the cache was put out, maybe the previous finders didn't notice it maybe all sorts of things could have happened but I do not take an attribute as a guaranteed occurrence of something or the lack of the attribute as a guarantee that the occurrence will not happen.

 

But if say one of the previous finders happened to notice that the 6th or 7th step on a very steep climb seems very wobbly when a person heavier then 125lbs steps on it and they note it in their log. I am going to be extra alert on those steps, but I am not going to assume that the other steps have not developed the same problem.

 

Adding a way to quickly and easily get to the information already in the logs does not change what information is available. It also does not guarantee that information is the only thing you need to be aware of. Everyone still needs to watch out for dangers when geocaching whether those dangers are listed or not.

 

All I'm asking for, and I think some others are asking for is a way to get to the safety information without having to wade through the trivia.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread's gone off-topic. "What needs to change?", the OP asked. Going into endless detail about one particular case does virtually nothing to answer the question. I've been struck by the dearth of other examples (apart from the Lost Places series) to justify any change proposals.

 

(EDIT: that was in reply to 7rxc and Otis.Gore)

Edited by I!

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read all the posts yet but I want to comment on the CO stating "the cache is before the gap". Does anyone know if the CO meant the gap as in the missing grill in the walkway or a gap in the pipeline support structure? For all we know, at the time the CO planted the cache there was no grill missing in the walkway.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh no, not more ghoulish dissection of the dead guy's misadventure. Are you enjoying this?

I think that was way out of line... Just my $0.02 :unsure:

 

This thread's gone off-topic. "What needs to change?", the OP asked. Going into endless detail about one particular case does virtually nothing to answer the question.

Actually, from am accident prevention standpoint, there is only one way to determine what needs to be changed, and that is to know exactly what happened. If we start offering solutions, without the facts, all we have is speculation that doing "X" might have prevented this. In any accident investigation, details are critical.

Share this post


Link to post

And if you clicked on it and it didn't open up to reveal any warning notes? What then?

Well I would proceed as usual with a normal sense of alertness. I would not think 'oh this cache is completely safe let me put this blindfold on and head to the GZ because nothing can hurt me' which is what you seem to be implying will happen.

No, that is not at all what I am implying. What I am implying, and you just confirmed, is that any sort of warning like that is, at best, totally worthless! No warning notes do not mean the cache is safe. A warning not means the cache is not safe. So, what is the point? Both lead to the cacher having to be responsible and do their own due diligence.

Share this post


Link to post

What I am implying, and you just confirmed, is that any sort of warning like that is, at best, totally worthless! No warning notes do not mean the cache is safe. A warning not means the cache is not safe. So, what is the point? Both lead to the cacher having to be responsible and do their own due diligence.

 

The same can be said for attributes already in place and difficulty and terrain ratings. They do not mean the cache is safe either. So would you say they are also worthless information since there is no guarantee they are accurate or all inclusive? Are they already promoting a false sense of security?

Share this post


Link to post
any sort of warning like that is, at best, totally worthless!

I'm not entirely sure I agree that warnings are totally worthless. Sometimes they can help you focus on something that you might have missed otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

What I am implying, and you just confirmed, is that any sort of warning like that is, at best, totally worthless! No warning notes do not mean the cache is safe. A warning not means the cache is not safe. So, what is the point? Both lead to the cacher having to be responsible and do their own due diligence.

 

The same can be said for attributes already in place and difficulty and terrain ratings. They do not mean the cache is safe either. So would you say they are also worthless information since there is no guarantee they are accurate or all inclusive? Are they already promoting a false sense of security?

The difficulty and terrain ratings are not intended to imply the safety of the cache. They are intended to give information about how hard it may be to spot the cache, and how difficult it may be to get to it. Period. And yes, even then it may behoove the finder to first read the logs. Its called, "doing your own homework".

Share this post


Link to post
What I am implying,... is that any sort of warning like that is, at best, totally worthless!

I can agree that, adding a warning type log would be of little use for my caches, as I would add it to every cache I owned, and every event I hosted, for a bit of proactive liability protection.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The difficulty and terrain ratings are not intended to imply the safety of the cache. They are intended to give information about how hard it may be to spot the cache, and how difficult it may be to get to it. Period. And yes, even then it may behoove the finder to first read the logs. Its called, "doing your own homework".

 

The D/T ratings are not specifically for safety but they are supposed to be a tool for finders to have an idea of what to expect. A warning log would be no different. A tool a finder could use to try and get a better idea of what to expect. Neither are fool-proof or perfect all-inclusive systems.

 

Reading all the logs may give a false sense of security and they may not give the complete picture of the caching area. So then those would be as equally worthless as logs flagged to address dangers.

 

I guess I don't understand, you say reading all the logs for information is 'doing my homework' yet when I ask for that information to be in a form that is more efficient to use you then claim the information is worthless. It is the same information.

Share this post


Link to post
I can agree that, adding a warning type log would be of little use for my caches, as I would add it to every cache I owned, and every event I hosted, for a bit of proactive liability protection.

I think I might get some use out of them on your caches. As long as you weren't deliberately misleading in your warning logs, it could be an efficient way for me to see what's in store for me on your caches. I don't mind a CYA policy by CO's, as long as what information is presented is truthful.

Share this post


Link to post

The difficulty and terrain ratings are not intended to imply the safety of the cache. They are intended to give information about how hard it may be to spot the cache, and how difficult it may be to get to it. Period. And yes, even then it may behoove the finder to first read the logs. Its called, "doing your own homework".

 

The D/T ratings are not specifically for safety but they are supposed to be a tool for finders to have an idea of what to expect. A warning log would be no different. A tool a finder could use to try and get a better idea of what to expect. Neither are fool-proof or perfect all-inclusive systems.

 

Reading all the logs may give a false sense of security and they may not give the complete picture of the caching area. So then those would be as equally worthless as logs flagged to address dangers.

 

I guess I don't understand, you say reading all the logs for information is 'doing my homework' yet when I ask for that information to be in a form that is more efficient to use you then claim the information is worthless. It is the same information.

 

I agree, but reading the logs is the only way to get as complete a story about the cache as possible, aside from emailing the cache owner or previous finders. The D/T ratings indeed are supposed to be a tool for finders to have an idea of what to expect... in the way of difficulty and terrain.

 

Once again:

 

You see a Danger log - There may be a danger. Be careful, and read all logs to gather every bit of information about the cache so you will be as knowledgeable as possible.

You don't see a Danger Log

- You assume that there may not be any dangers. You don't worry about this cache. Piece of cake.

- There may be dangers that haven't been reported yet. You don't read the logs because you like to wing it.

- There may be dangers that haven't been reported yet. You read the logs because you are responsible for your own well-being. You also realize that even this may not be sufficient, but its the best you've got.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Once again:

 

You see a Danger log - There may be a danger. Be careful, and read all logs to gather every bit of information about the cache so you will be as knowledgeable as possible.

You don't see a Danger Log

- You assume that there may not be any dangers. You don't worry about this cache. Piece of cake.

- There may be dangers that haven't been reported yet. You don't read the logs because you like to wing it.

- There may be dangers that haven't been reported yet. You read the logs because you are responsible for your own well-being. You also realize that even this may not be sufficient, but its the best you've got.

 

Well maybe it is just a inability on a personal level, but I can not retain information I feel is important when it is lumped in with a ton of data I feel is unimportant. So perhaps I am being selfish in asking that this information to be made available in a form that I can understand and more importantly retain. It is not an issue of personal responsibility (I want to cache safely) but knowing my personal limitations (I can't remember everything).

 

If I only went to a cache or two a day it wold probably not be an issue. But for example my caching of two days ago we had made plans for 48 caches. After reading through every log by the time I got to about the 20th cache I had so much information all jumbled together it was not possible for me to accurately recall what information went with each cache.

But if there was a way (perhaps via a method of flagging logs with an attribute type system or having a new log type) where I could review information submitted by previous finders I felt was important(like things that may harm me) it would be a boon to my retention because the amount of data I would need to process would be much lower. Now knowing that the 14th finder of cache X ate lunch at Red Lobster prior to finding it is not 'useful' or 'helpful' to me and it is a hindrance when it causes me to forget that the planks on the east side of the bridge at cache Y are to be avoided by people on the heavy side even though they appear to be in the same condition as the planks on the west.

Share this post


Link to post

Once again:

 

You see a Danger log - There may be a danger. Be careful, and read all logs to gather every bit of information about the cache so you will be as knowledgeable as possible.

You don't see a Danger Log

- You assume that there may not be any dangers. You don't worry about this cache. Piece of cake.

- There may be dangers that haven't been reported yet. You don't read the logs because you like to wing it.

- There may be dangers that haven't been reported yet. You read the logs because you are responsible for your own well-being. You also realize that even this may not be sufficient, but its the best you've got.

 

Well maybe it is just a inability on a personal level, but I can not retain information I feel is important when it is lumped in with a ton of data I feel is unimportant. So perhaps I am being selfish in asking that this information to be made available in a form that I can understand and more importantly retain. It is not an issue of personal responsibility (I want to cache safely) but knowing my personal limitations (I can't remember everything).

 

If I only went to a cache or two a day it wold probably not be an issue. But for example my caching of two days ago we had made plans for 48 caches. After reading through every log by the time I got to about the 20th cache I had so much information all jumbled together it was not possible for me to accurately recall what information went with each cache.

But if there was a way (perhaps via a method of flagging logs with an attribute type system or having a new log type) where I could review information submitted by previous finders I felt was important(like things that may harm me) it would be a boon to my retention because the amount of data I would need to process would be much lower. Now knowing that the 14th finder of cache X ate lunch at Red Lobster prior to finding it is not 'useful' or 'helpful' to me and it is a hindrance when it causes me to forget that the planks on the east side of the bridge at cache Y are to be avoided by people on the heavy side even though they appear to be in the same condition as the planks on the west.

 

I completely agree with you that what I've been talking about is not for the guy that downloads a pocket query for the day and heads out to find a bunch of ordinary caches. But those are not the caches that this thread is based on. I guess I hear your point... the cache that caused this thread was only a 3.5 T, and not a 4.5 or 5.0 T cache, so how would you know that you should have read all of the logs first. And I don't really have a good answer for you there. But once again.... it is a 3.5 Terrain cache with no warning logs. So you are going to assume that it is safe?

Share this post


Link to post

I completely agree with you that what I've been talking about is not for the guy that downloads a pocket query for the day and heads out to find a bunch of ordinary caches. But those are not the caches that this thread is based on. I guess I hear your point... the cache that caused this thread was only a 3.5 T, and not a 4.5 or 5.0 T cache, so how would you know that you should have read all of the logs first. And I don't really have a good answer for you there. But once again.... it is a 3.5 Terrain cache with no warning logs. So you are going to assume that it is safe?

 

I completely support warnings, specifically because of examples like this.

Share this post


Link to post

But once again.... it is a 3.5 Terrain cache with no warning logs. So you are going to assume that it is safe?

No, but I am not limiting the system to only caches on the high end of the difficulty scale.

I actually think it would be more beneficial for caches on the low end of the scale (where I normally cache).

Having a way for the safety information to pop out on the 'easy' caches where most people won't sift through every log.

Thinking you are heading to an easy 1.5/1.5

Glance at the top of the log listing

Notice three logs out of the 84 have a 'safety attention' flag

Click the little icon and see what concerned those 3 folks when those logs float to the top of the list from their previous spot in chronological order.

Might be something trivial like a warning of thorns.

Might be something important like if you approach the cache from the east (say you were getting another cache in the area first) instead of from the south where the parking coordinates put you there is an uncovered well you need to avoid that would be directly in your path.

This might be something the CO knew nothing about. Might be something most previous finders were not aware of because they only went from the parking lot to the cache. But that one cacher a year ago had the same idea you had to get that other cache first and was kind enough to post a warning about it. That might just save your life.

I'm just not seeing how that is bad or worthless to implement, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post

But once again.... it is a 3.5 Terrain cache with no warning logs. So you are going to assume that it is safe?

No, but I am not limiting the system to only caches on the high end of the difficulty scale.

I actually think it would be more beneficial for caches on the low end of the scale (where I normally cache).

Having a way for the safety information to pop out on the 'easy' caches where most people won't sift through every log.

Thinking you are heading to an easy 1.5/1.5

Glance at the top of the log listing

Notice three logs out of the 84 have a 'safety attention' flag

Click the little icon and see what concerned those 3 folks when those logs float to the top of the list from their previous spot in chronological order.

Might be something trivial like a warning of thorns.

Might be something important like if you approach the cache from the east (say you were getting another cache in the area first) instead of from the south where the parking coordinates put you there is an uncovered well you need to avoid that would be directly in your path.

This might be something the CO knew nothing about. Might be something most previous finders were not aware of because they only went from the parking lot to the cache. But that one cacher a year ago had the same idea you had to get that other cache first and was kind enough to post a warning about it. That might just save your life.

I'm just not seeing how that is bad or worthless to implement, sorry.

 

OK, I am somewhat, slowly leaning toward your side of things, given that explanation. At least, I can see your point. Can you see mine, though? That having a warning becomes a sense of false security when nobody has posted one on a cache that may be dangerous anyway?

Share this post


Link to post

...All of this talk...and the only thing that needs to change is how some people don't think about risks and assess the area or situation. If it seems unsafe, you don't have to get the cache. If it is actually, seriously really dangerous, it likely will get properly reported and archived. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

...All of this talk...and the only thing that needs to change is how some people don't think about risks and assess the area or situation. If it seems unsafe, you don't have to get the cache. If it is actually, seriously really dangerous, it likely will get properly reported and archived. :blink:

 

I would hazard a guess that the average geocacher is less risk averse than the average muggle. Every person will decide for themselves what constitutes "seriously really dangerous". Often times we choose wrong. How much TV footage have you seen of people deliberately driving into flood water. Some of them don't survive. And every time they show it, the warning not to do it is repeated. We will never know who was saved by the warning, but we'll get all the details about the ones that were not saved.

 

In this case the structure was about 20 feet high with very little water under it at the time. I personally would not have assessed that as having a high probability of being life threatening. I might have decided it was an acceptable risk. Of course I would not have expected a grate to be missing from the middle of the span, so that would not have been factored into my initial risk assessment. But just because I decide to start something doesn't mean that I can't abort as more information becomes available.

 

Sufficient warning might keep me from ever going to a GZ, but once I am there I will do my own initial and continuing evaluation.

 

Here is something I did find interesting: The Psychology of Warnings

Share this post


Link to post

 

I would hazard a guess that the average geocacher is less risk averse than the average muggle.

 

Only from experience. Otherwise what makes us different?

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, from am accident prevention standpoint, there is only one way to determine what needs to be changed, and that is to know exactly what happened. If we start offering solutions, without the facts, all we have is speculation that doing "X" might have prevented this. In any accident investigation, details are critical.

This is not an accident investigation, much as certain people would like to assume the role.

 

With respect to the departed, endless detail of one person's demise is not useful in justifying safety changes on gc.com: that cacher is not going to die that way again. So, move on, and justify those safety measures by means of a range of other perceived dangers, near misses, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...