Jump to content

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


veit
Followers 8

Recommended Posts

 

...how was the finder even supposed to SEE that gap?

A flashlight? I know if I'm planning on climbing up into some metal structure which is really high, without a soft area under it, during freezing temperatures, at night, by myself, I'm gonna bring a flashlight as minimum equipment. As I walk along such a treacherous perch, I'm gonna point my flashlight downward, so I can see where my feet are going.

 

a headlamp is even better, that way both hands are free

Link to comment

However, I am tired to discuss nonsense arguments like "nobody reads warnings", "he should have taken a flashlight", "attributes are enough/the same as specific warnings", "it's only the COs responsability", "people can already post warnings in logs and that's enough" or who is liable or can or cannot be sued in this country or that.

 

As someone who has been quiet;y following this thread, the quoted line sums up the issue with this thread and any subsequent feature requests.

 

People are giving valid reason why this would not work and resources devoted to the change would be an act in futility, yet are simply being dismissed and calling them nonsense is simply disrespectful and won't lead to any further constructive discussion. In most areas, putting on warning labels that will not ever be read are a means to help mitigate damages if a lawsuit were to occur. They offer little or no real physical "protections" to the consumer since they are ignored. Read the warnings on a simple hair dryer as an example.

 

Currently, there is a mechanism in place in GC to give others a warning. For the CO it is to place in the description with a combination of a higher d/t rating. For the cacher, it is a warning in a note or log and, if warranted, a NA log. Warnings over or misused will be ignored, the things I mentioned above are more likely to be effective because of their "uncommon" nature.

 

I may not be clear on everything that you are asking, however I think in part you are looking for more involvement from the reviewers. While reviewers are chosen for many reasons, including their general familiarity with an area, they are not necessarily aware of every minute detail of the area a hide is placed in and as such, could not effectively police the listing without a note or NA from an area cacher, a method already in place.

 

Passing a law, rule or in this case a guideline that has no hope of being enforced would be a nightmare for GS and the reviewers and possibly even lead to people becoming more complacent about things as they adopt a attitude of feeling that since there was no warning on this cache there are no dangers when things area missed. Setting aside the potential this may have for liability, more importantly, this may lead to even further unnecessary injuries.

 

I truly do feel sorry this happened and I know that because this is close to home for you, you want to do everything you can to prevent this in the future, we all do. I just don't think what you are proposing is going to do that.

Link to comment
Currently, there is a mechanism in place in GC to give others a warning. For the CO it is to place in the description with a combination of a higher d/t rating. For the cacher, it is a warning in a note or log and, if warranted, a NA log.

Speaking only for myself, a Warning log type would be interesting to me. I'm fairly certain I would make a habit of reading any warning logs. For a cache with hundreds of logs, I know I will not read all of them, but a handful of Warning logs? I would. It would be a way to highlight logs I really should read.

 

It's true that the CO has a mechanism for placing warnings in the cache description - using big, bold, red font if she so desires - but part of the issue / point is that not all CO's will. As a community we may be able to find ways to bridge some of the danger / warning gaps that a CO may not have thought of or cared to highlight.

Link to comment
Imagine there are 100 logs and one important warning is 50 logs away: most wouldn't notice even if they read logs.

 

I would argue that if 49 other people have found the cache and didn't feel the need to mention the warning then it really can't be that important.

 

Imagine the new warning log type. I can see one of two things happening:

 

1) It never gets used.

 

2) It gets used so much it loses all meaning.

 

Log types are just like cache sizes. People don't even make proper use of the ones we have now so adding another isn't going to make that situation any better.

 

Don't even get me started on how warnings could actually make these dangerous caches even more appealing. Just as people compete to try and find the highest terrain caches or to complete 5/5 caches, it wouldn't take long for the competitive juices to get going: "Dude, I just did a cache with 6 warning flags on it." Anytime you assign a number or a rating to something related to Geocaching it becomes a competition -- don't kid yourself.

 

There is a lot of emotion after a death and that is not the right time to be making decisions which count on logical non-emotional analysis.

Link to comment
Currently, there is a mechanism in place in GC to give others a warning. For the CO it is to place in the description with a combination of a higher d/t rating. For the cacher, it is a warning in a note or log and, if warranted, a NA log.

Speaking only for myself, a Warning log type would be interesting to me. I'm fairly certain I would make a habit of reading any warning logs. For a cache with hundreds of logs, I know I will not read all of them, but a handful of Warning logs? I would. It would be a way to highlight logs I really should read.

 

It's true that the CO has a mechanism for placing warnings in the cache description - using big, bold, red font if she so desires - but part of the issue / point is that not all CO's will. As a community we may be able to find ways to bridge some of the danger / warning gaps that a CO may not have thought of or cared to highlight.

 

Just trying to help:

 

Cache page WARNING cover sheet request

 

Geocaching Safety Forum Request

Link to comment

I don't think most cachers know that they can contact a reviewer and report a cache.

 

See that "Report" icon on the lower left side below this message? report.png Maybe we need something like that on each cache page (near the top so that people don't need to scroll down to see it).

 

The Report button is somewhat anonymous (only the Reviewer sees the reporter's trailname) and might work in a culture where posting a Needs Archive gets the community angry.

 

100% in favor of this feature. It would be anonymous and official (vice a private email to the reviewer).

Link to comment

I don't think most cachers know that they can contact a reviewer and report a cache.

 

See that "Report" icon on the lower left side below this message? report.png Maybe we need something like that on each cache page (near the top so that people don't need to scroll down to see it).

 

The Report button is somewhat anonymous (only the Reviewer sees the reporter's trailname) and might work in a culture where posting a Needs Archive gets the community angry.

 

100% in favor of this feature. It would be anonymous and official (vice a private email to the reviewer).

 

I posted to your feature request. I like the idea.

Link to comment
We don't really know what the ambient lighting conditions were like in the area - the lighting could've been such that even a flashlight might not have assured that he saw the gap (perhaps there was glare from fixed lights nearby - that can ruin your night vision). Or perhaps there was fog or other conditions that affected his vision. I think that even under good conditions, that gap could likely be hard to notice depending on how well dark adapted you were. Under the wrong conditions, that gap could've been VERY difficult to see, particularly since the grating was also black. You might well not see it unless you were looking for it. Unfortunately, the hider didn't bother to mention the gap, so you wouldn't know to look for it.

 

With the right flashlight, ambient lighting becomes irrelevant. If I were going to scale a height sufficient to kill me, at night, in freezing conditions, without a spotter, where there was no soft landing area beneath me, I would be sure to bring a proper light. Just a glance at the pictures Veit provided tells me that this is a structure that can easily kill me. Knowing that, it is imperative that I be prepared. What we don't know is, how prepared Willi was. Did he have a good flashlight? If so, did he use it? Or was his nose buried in his GPSr like the previous finder who almost fell through the gap?

 

As for the color of the grating, I thought it was battleship grey? Did I not see that in the picture? Battleship grey is often a choice for metal structures because it is non-reflective, (no glare) and it shows obstructions (trip hazards) and gaps (holes) very well. Let's take a peek;

 

6d785d65-ef03-4ab7-b548-07abca20e2fe.jpg?rnd=0.574608

 

Yup. Definitely grey. Not black.

 

Also, contrary to your misinformation campaign, the hider did "bother" to mention the gap. So did previous finders. The information was there. What we don't know is whether or not Willi "bothered" to utilize the resources available to him. I don't know Willi, so I don't know how well he prepares for such endeavors. I can only speak for myself. When I go after a cache, and it is blatantly obvious that my attempt could easily result in my death, (such as climbing a significantly elevated metal structure, at night, alone, in freezing conditions, above a shallow, rock strewn creek), I do as much research as possible, to include carefully scrutinizing the cache page, the D/T rating, the attributes and all of the past logs. We don't know if Willi did this or not, but we do know that all the information was there, if he chose to view it.

 

And you still want to give the hider a pass on this?

I don't recall saying, or even hinting that I was willing to give the hider a pass. Can you provide a link? What I do recall saying is that cache seekers need to take some responsibility for poor choices they make. It is a two way street, and you seem to be stuck in only one direction. I am oft called "Reckless" because of the stupid things I've done to increase my find count, but even I would not have attempted that cache, under those conditions, without proper preparation. I haven't been to the cache site, so all I can do is speculate based on what has been posted. From reading those posts, it appears that this cache was in a place where Joe Public was not allowed, although there were no signs to that effect. I see this as a huge permission issue, worthy of a Needs Archived log, but apparently those 34 people who actually found the cache didn't feel that way.

 

This cache killed a person.

Again, I can only speculate based on what has been posted. I haven't read the coroner's report. I suspect that Willi's death was caused by falling, and striking his head on a rock. I don't think it was the cache that actually killed him. We might utilize some circular logic to assert that the existence of the cache was a contributing factor, but it most certainly was not the key factor. The cache sat there for 6 weeks without killing any of the 34 people who hunted it prior to Willi's tragic visit. I won't blame my fork for me being fat. Nor, will I blame a micro cache for Willi's death.

Link to comment

The title of your closed thread is not "abundantly clear," at least not to me. It talks about preventing a tragic death. That sort of tone is not needed in the Feature Request forum. Words like "new log type" are.

Lastly, I do not rewrite feature requests as part of my moderator role, though I do fix title formatting, merge duplicate threads, etc. I especially would not rewrite a feature request if I did not understand the details. So, once again, I encourage you to do so.

 

Ok, I did. I'm still not happy with your moderating - the topic title was "[FEATURE] New logtype: "Warning" or editable wiki-like Warnings section in cache listings" and the smaller description was "A tragic death might have been avoidable if we had a warnings section." which I feel entirely appropriate. Anyway, let's top arguing about such minor stuff. I'll follow your suggestion and ask you to please be more helpful to not-so-active posters like me in the future. Could you please add a link to the new feature request to the thread for the old one in case others follow the old links (I already fixed a few in this thread). Thanks!

 

New feature request is here - I now only posted a request for the new log type, since this seems quicker to implement:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287312

Link to comment

There is no special log type or feature needed.

 

The cache should never have been published in the first place, as the place was clearly off limits.

 

The cachers should have e-mailed the reviewer their concern, but none did.

 

 

Es gibt keine speziellen Protokoll-Typ oder Funktion benötigt.

 

Der Cache sollte nie an erster Stelle veröffentlicht worden sein, als das Gebiet war eindeutig tabu.

 

Die Geocacher sollten per E-Mail haben die Kritiker ihre Bedenken, aber keiner tat.

Link to comment

Today a german newspaper published an article. There are pictures of the bridge Willi fell off and some other background information.

 

NewsPaper article

 

Translated into English: http://translate.goo...2942204&act=url

 

At the accident site, police found two pens, a flashlight, a cell phone, car keys - and a GPS device, use it as a modern treasure hunters.
Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I think you cannot compare cigarette warnings to those proposed here. The warnings posted on cigarette packs are general knowledge - every smoker knows this since these facts are known for a long time. In addition, smoking warnings apply to every cigarette. So smokers don't care about them...

 

In the case of cache warnings, these new proposed warnings are not general warnings for all caches out there. The warnings are cache-specific. Thus, before reading them, you cannot know what the warning content will be for that specific cache you are looking for in the moment.

 

Next thing is, the usual logs are not sufficient enough to post important warnings. No one reads all logs, if someone says this, he is lying. Imagine there are 100 logs and one important warning is 50 logs away: most wouldn't notice even if they read logs. With a special log type this can be different: you scroll down the cache description, you come to the beginning of the logs section, you see: 123 finds, 5 dnf, 10 notes, 3 warnings...

 

3 warnings? Hmm wait, shouldn't I click to see what is in those warnings??? I think I would like to know...

 

If you don't like such a feature, just don't click to see the warnings, just ignore, it's up to everyone. Some might read them...

 

This is exactly how I would react to this situation. 3 warning flags? Maybe I should see what that's all about. Without them, I see nothing but found it logs supporting a successful attempt on the part other finders.

 

And one last point: some said they don't think people would use this feature. This is wrong. There are lot's of cachers out there who do post warnings in their logs, who care about others...

 

I just made the comment that the logs for the cache where Willi died did not include any serious warning. So I do not believe that in the case of this cache an existing section on warnings would have made any difference, not even for those reading every single log. It could make some difference for other caches in case the cache owner is not reacting in a responsible way (otherwise, any warning from a log could be inserted to the top of the cache listing anyway).

 

Moreover, I think that quite a number of warnings will be in conflict with the interest of some cache hiders to have a really challenging cache. So suppose someone writes: Take care the branch in 5m height is not very strong. This then lets others conclude that the cache is higher up and there are owners who do not wish that such informations are given.So by introducing a section over which the cache owner does not have control, will certainly lead to debates among cachers and Groundspeak will get involved and apart from the technical issues this will likely them to reject a new feature along the proposed lines. Using NM logs for serious warnings is, however, something we still can do and where no involvement of Groundspeak is necessary.

 

Cezanne

 

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

Link to comment

The cache should never have been published in the first place, as the place was clearly off limits.

The cachers should have e-mailed the reviewer their concern, but none did.

 

I am certainly not a fan of such caches, but it is one of the more harmless one among the huge number of dangerous ones that

are hidden at locations cachers are not supposed to be.

 

Raising concerns and getting heard is not that easy as you might think without knowing the geocaching communities in countries like Germany and some of its

neighbouring countries with a huge number of cachers (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic).

 

Consider e.g. this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

which is certainly considerably more dangerous than the cache at which Willi died.

Back in 2009 a young guy (probably 15 years old back then) even wrote a NA-log for the cache referred to above (the history was that one of his caches, a tree climbing cache, had been

archived due being on private property), but the only reaction he received were insulting comments.

 

It is even more difficult to get heard when it is well known that one will never manage a certain cache. It quickly ends up in accusations of the form that one is against cache X just because one is not sufficiently skilled, brave etc to manage that cache. Geocaching is not my profession, it's just a sparetime activity for the sake of which most cachers do not want to increase their number of enemies too much.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The cache should never have been published in the first place, as the place was clearly off limits.

The cachers should have e-mailed the reviewer their concern, but none did.

 

I am certainly not a fan of such caches, but it is one of the more harmless one among the huge number of dangerous ones that

are hidden at locations cachers are not supposed to be.

 

Raising concerns and getting heard is not that easy as you might think without knowing the geocaching communities in countries like Germany and some of its

neighbouring countries with a huge number of cachers (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic).

 

Consider e.g. this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

which is certainly considerably more dangerous than the cache at which Willi died.

Back in 2009 a young guy (probably 15 years old back then) even wrote a NA-log for the cache referred to above (the history was that one of his caches, a tree climbing cache, had been

archived due being on private property), but the only reaction he received were insulting comments.

 

It is even more difficult to get heard when it is well known that one will never manage a certain cache. It quickly ends up in accusations of the form that one is against cache X just because one is not sufficiently skilled, brave etc to manage that cache. Geocaching is not my profession, it's just a sparetime activity for the sake of which most cachers do not want to increase their number of enemies too much.

 

Cezanne

 

I don't see danger as the problem. If it is illegal to access the cache, then it should be archived or not published in the first place. If there is a "large amount" of these caches present then the reviewer needs to change their publishing habits.

Link to comment

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocaching.com%2Fseek%2Fcache_details.aspx%3Fguid%3Dc5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

 

Von den Koordinaten und den Logs war schnell klar wo der Cache sein muss, aber ungesichert halt ich es für zu gefährlich zudem dürfte die Location als Privatgrund gelten (ich glaub nicht das der Besitzer jemanden oben sehen möchte) und ein Aufstieg daher illegal sein.

 

From the coordinates and logs was quickly clear where the cache must be, but unsecured halt I to dangerous also will apply the location as a private (not that I think the owner someone would like to see above) and a climb be therefore illegal. It is also too well in the field of view of many Muggels.

This is the first cache which I voluntarily leave out: /.

 

So the reviewer is aware that it is illegal to access this cache, but it remains active? No amount of special log types are going to put a stop to this. The problem is self evident.

Link to comment

I don't see danger as the problem. If it is illegal to access the cache, then it should be archived or not published in the first place. If there is a "large amount" of these caches present then the reviewer needs to change their publishing habits.

 

Ok, I see two very different trains of thought emerging here:

 

1. "Illegal caches should not exist, they should be archived." This is what 4wheelin_fool and others are suggesting.

2. "Regardless of the illegality of a cache, cachers should be able to warn others of dangers." What others and me are proposing.

 

Cezanne already described that caches in places that one shouldnt officially go are a big part of the game, at least here in Germany. My feeling is that there would be an enormous backlash against any attempts to archive all such caches. However, since you seem so sure that this is the way to go, and the current process works, please go ahead and get all those illegal caches archived. Cezanne already posted the first link, there are thousands more.

 

I really think my approach is more sensible, but maybe I'm wrong and it is easier to drop the "archive hammer" like someone suggested here before.

Link to comment

I really think my approach is more sensible, but maybe I'm wrong and it is easier to drop the "archive hammer" like someone suggested here before.

 

It's not easy to drop the archive hammer. SBA's are NOT well received in my experience.

 

The IS a geocaching cultural issue that needs to be addressed.

Link to comment

 

And one last point: some said they don't think people would use this feature. This is wrong. There are lot's of cachers out there who do post warnings in their logs, who care about others...

 

I just made the comment that the logs for the cache where Willi died did not include any serious warning. So I do not believe that in the case of this cache an existing section on warnings would have made any difference, not even for those reading every single log. It could make some difference for other caches in case the cache owner is not reacting in a responsible way (otherwise, any warning from a log could be inserted to the top of the cache listing anyway).

 

Moreover, I think that quite a number of warnings will be in conflict with the interest of some cache hiders to have a really challenging cache. So suppose someone writes: Take care the branch in 5m height is not very strong. This then lets others conclude that the cache is higher up and there are owners who do not wish that such informations are given.So by introducing a section over which the cache owner does not have control, will certainly lead to debates among cachers and Groundspeak will get involved and apart from the technical issues this will likely them to reject a new feature along the proposed lines. Using NM logs for serious warnings is, however, something we still can do and where no involvement of Groundspeak is necessary.

 

Cezanne

 

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

What I meant is just that if the cache owner is not wanting to cooperate, he will delete such logs and urge the following cachers not to write similar logs. So the result is just the same as what we have right now. We can post warnings already now. While for found it logs there exists some form of protocol that allows one to get deleted logs reestablished, this is not true for all the other log types except NA-logs as these are sent to reviewers anyway.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I don't see danger as the problem. If it is illegal to access the cache, then it should be archived or not published in the first place. If there is a "large amount" of these caches present then the reviewer needs to change their publishing habits.

 

Ok, I see two very different trains of thought emerging here:

 

1. "Illegal caches should not exist, they should be archived." This is what 4wheelin_fool and others are suggesting.

2. "Regardless of the illegality of a cache, cachers should be able to warn others of dangers." What others and me are proposing.

 

Cezanne already described that caches in places that one shouldnt officially go are a big part of the game, at least here in Germany. My feeling is that there would be an enormous backlash against any attempts to archive all such caches. However, since you seem so sure that this is the way to go, and the current process works, please go ahead and get all those illegal caches archived. Cezanne already posted the first link, there are thousands more.

 

I really think my approach is more sensible, but maybe I'm wrong and it is easier to drop the "archive hammer" like someone suggested here before.

 

Been following along, but I can't get past your statement that there should be caches in places where one shouldn't officially go. Did you miss the very first thing in the guidelines about placing caches that states all local laws apply? And the part after that stating you should have permission?

 

To me that's like a thief who complains not that he broke the law but that he got caught if you ask me.

Link to comment

I don't see danger as the problem. If it is illegal to access the cache, then it should be archived or not published in the first place. If there is a "large amount" of these caches present then the reviewer needs to change their publishing habits.

 

Ok, I see two very different trains of thought emerging here:

 

1. "Illegal caches should not exist, they should be archived." This is what 4wheelin_fool and others are suggesting.

2. "Regardless of the illegality of a cache, cachers should be able to warn others of dangers." What others and me are proposing.

 

Cezanne already described that caches in places that one shouldnt officially go are a big part of the game, at least here in Germany. My feeling is that there would be an enormous backlash against any attempts to archive all such caches. However, since you seem so sure that this is the way to go, and the current process works, please go ahead and get all those illegal caches archived. Cezanne already posted the first link, there are thousands more.

 

I really think my approach is more sensible, but maybe I'm wrong and it is easier to drop the "archive hammer" like someone suggested here before.

 

There are plenty of legal caches which are dangerous to find. Those caches would suffer using the special log type system which you proposed, and which would undoubtedly be abused. I dont see danger as being a problem. I enjoy it.

 

Those illegal area caches all should be archived, and perhaps Willi's death should be the catalyst. The German reviewer should be archived also.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

 

And one last point: some said they don't think people would use this feature. This is wrong. There are lot's of cachers out there who do post warnings in their logs, who care about others...

 

I just made the comment that the logs for the cache where Willi died did not include any serious warning. So I do not believe that in the case of this cache an existing section on warnings would have made any difference, not even for those reading every single log. It could make some difference for other caches in case the cache owner is not reacting in a responsible way (otherwise, any warning from a log could be inserted to the top of the cache listing anyway).

 

Moreover, I think that quite a number of warnings will be in conflict with the interest of some cache hiders to have a really challenging cache. So suppose someone writes: Take care the branch in 5m height is not very strong. This then lets others conclude that the cache is higher up and there are owners who do not wish that such informations are given.So by introducing a section over which the cache owner does not have control, will certainly lead to debates among cachers and Groundspeak will get involved and apart from the technical issues this will likely them to reject a new feature along the proposed lines. Using NM logs for serious warnings is, however, something we still can do and where no involvement of Groundspeak is necessary.

 

Cezanne

 

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

What I meant is just that if the cache owner is not wanting to cooperate, he will delete such logs and urge the following cachers not to write similar logs. So the result is just the same as what we have right now. We can post warnings already now. While for found it logs there exists some form of protocol that allows one to get deleted logs reestablished, this is not true for all the other log types except NA-logs as these are sent to reviewers anyway.

 

Cezanne

 

Ok, that makes sense.

 

Here's something along the lines of what I'd like to see.

 

At the beginning of the logs, there is a listing of each log type that's been logged...Find it, DNF, write note, etc.

I'd like a warning log added here. Warnings:3, for example.

 

I'd like to be able to click on that warning log and see a listing of the warning logs. It should be similiar to the NM log in that the system prompts us to be sure that we want to post such a log.

 

The CO can delete the log if it's legit that it needs to be deleted. I guess this is where all the controversy can arise. But we can work through that.

Edited by JesandTodd
Link to comment

The cache should never have been published in the first place, as the place was clearly off limits.

The cachers should have e-mailed the reviewer their concern, but none did.

 

I am certainly not a fan of such caches, but it is one of the more harmless one among the huge number of dangerous ones that

are hidden at locations cachers are not supposed to be.

 

Raising concerns and getting heard is not that easy as you might think without knowing the geocaching communities in countries like Germany and some of its

neighbouring countries with a huge number of cachers (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic).

 

Consider e.g. this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

which is certainly considerably more dangerous than the cache at which Willi died.

Back in 2009 a young guy (probably 15 years old back then) even wrote a NA-log for the cache referred to above (the history was that one of his caches, a tree climbing cache, had been

archived due being on private property), but the only reaction he received were insulting comments.

 

It is even more difficult to get heard when it is well known that one will never manage a certain cache. It quickly ends up in accusations of the form that one is against cache X just because one is not sufficiently skilled, brave etc to manage that cache. Geocaching is not my profession, it's just a sparetime activity for the sake of which most cachers do not want to increase their number of enemies too much.

 

Cezanne

 

I don't see danger as the problem. If it is illegal to access the cache, then it should be archived or not published in the first place. If there is a "large amount" of these caches present then the reviewer needs to change their publishing habits.

 

Climbing the steel support structure of the (very high) sign of a privately owned shopping Mall? I'm afraid I agree with your SBA posted. I also agree the cache willimax died at should not have been published. Both are places the public has no business accessing.

Link to comment

Been following along, but I can't get past your statement that there should be caches in places where one shouldn't officially go. Did you miss the very first thing in the guidelines about placing caches that states all local laws apply? And the part after that stating you should have permission?

 

To me that's like a thief who complains not that he broke the law but that he got caught if you ask me.

 

Argh, I really didnt wanna get dragged into this one. I have done "illegal caches" myself and enjoyed them, "Lost Places" are HUGELY popular here, and some of the most interesting caches. I havent done many of them, and I don't feel qualified enough to discuss whether they should exist or not - there are surely tons and tons of cachers who have much stronger feelings about this issue, and probably great discussions of the past about it that we could link here. In the end there MUST be some consensus at least in the German geocaching community that they are ok to place, list, search, since there are just such huge numbers of them out there.

 

What I'm suggesting is that regardless of the illegality of a cache we should have a way to warn other cachers of dangers.

Link to comment

Been following along, but I can't get past your statement that there should be caches in places where one shouldn't officially go. Did you miss the very first thing in the guidelines about placing caches that states all local laws apply? And the part after that stating you should have permission?

 

To me that's like a thief who complains not that he broke the law but that he got caught if you ask me.

 

Argh, I really didnt wanna get dragged into this one. I have done "illegal caches" myself and enjoyed them, "Lost Places" are HUGELY popular here, and some of the most interesting caches. I havent done many of them, and I don't feel qualified enough to discuss whether they should exist or not - there are surely tons and tons of cachers who have much stronger feelings about this issue, and probably great discussions of the past about it that we could link here. In the end there MUST be some consensus at least in the German geocaching community that they are ok to place, list, search, since there are just such huge numbers of them out there.

 

What I'm suggesting is that regardless of the illegality of a cache we should have a way to warn other cachers of dangers.

 

There are sufficient warnings in place already. If the guidelines are being ignored, why would anyone take notice of additional warnings?

 

When someone gets killed doing something illegal, it makes the entire sport look like a bunch of lawbreakers. Perhaps there is a great need for an illegal access website in Germany, where people could break laws and brag about it.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocaching.com%2Fseek%2Fcache_details.aspx%3Fguid%3Dc5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

 

Von den Koordinaten und den Logs war schnell klar wo der Cache sein muss, aber ungesichert halt ich es für zu gefährlich zudem dürfte die Location als Privatgrund gelten (ich glaub nicht das der Besitzer jemanden oben sehen möchte) und ein Aufstieg daher illegal sein.

 

From the coordinates and logs was quickly clear where the cache must be, but unsecured halt I to dangerous also will apply the location as a private (not that I think the owner someone would like to see above) and a climb be therefore illegal. It is also too well in the field of view of many Muggels.

This is the first cache which I voluntarily leave out: /.

 

So the reviewer is aware that it is illegal to access this cache, but it remains active? No amount of special log types are going to put a stop to this. The problem is self evident.

 

I'm already curious what will be the reaction to your NA-log. The young guy who dared to post a NA log back in 2009 was told that he should buy diapers in a nearby shop of the mall as he is only afraid of going for the cache. Normally, NA logs coming from someone not local, are even more frowned upon.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

How about the following as a rule of thumb for cache owners:

 

If a probable "wow factor" for a seeker of your cache is "Oh wow, I'm dead!", you should not hide that cache.

I'm not sure if you mean that or not. Clearly most geocacher have no object to someone hiding an extreme cache - if it is a location where the activity is legal and widely accepted. Scuba cache, cache involving rock climbing, spelunking, etc. are all activities where you might risk your life.

 

More likely you are objecting to caches places in locations of questionable legality. In some regions, more than others, there are caches that are hidden on man-made structures where the public is generally not supposed to be. There may be scaffolding or catwalks for the people who do maintenance on the structure that seem to attract some people into hiding caches there. In some areas as well it has become popular to hide caches in abandoned structures (Lost Places) and often these will require climbing on something that is unstable or not as safe. The problem here is that there many be areas where it is legal (though still dangerous) to explore abandoned structures.

 

Cache owners should always take into consideration and special dangers that someone may face in searching for their cache. Use of atrributes, D/T ratinges, and calling out the hazards in the description are good ideas. Placing caches in illegal areas is not a good idea. However because laws are different in different areas this is somewhat difficult for the reviewers to enforce.

 

Perhaps an indication in the permission guidelines that caches that require climbing on infrastructure or using access that is not meant for the general public may archived if explicit permission is not documented. (There is an assumption that you don't have adequate permission to climb on the outside of a building or be on a catwalk used to maintain utilities in a bridge).

Link to comment

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocaching.com%2Fseek%2Fcache_details.aspx%3Fguid%3Dc5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

 

Von den Koordinaten und den Logs war schnell klar wo der Cache sein muss, aber ungesichert halt ich es für zu gefährlich zudem dürfte die Location als Privatgrund gelten (ich glaub nicht das der Besitzer jemanden oben sehen möchte) und ein Aufstieg daher illegal sein.

 

From the coordinates and logs was quickly clear where the cache must be, but unsecured halt I to dangerous also will apply the location as a private (not that I think the owner someone would like to see above) and a climb be therefore illegal. It is also too well in the field of view of many Muggels.

This is the first cache which I voluntarily leave out: /.

 

So the reviewer is aware that it is illegal to access this cache, but it remains active? No amount of special log types are going to put a stop to this. The problem is self evident.

 

I'm already curious what will be the reaction to your NA-log. The young guy who dared to post a NA log back in 2009 was told that he should buy diapers in a nearby shop of the mall as he is only afraid of going for the cache.

 

Cezanne

 

I could have saved a life today

but chose to look the other way.

 

It wasn’t that I didn’t care.

I had the time, and I was there

but I didn’t want to seem a fool

and argue over geocaching guideline & safety rules.

 

I knew others had hides like that before.

if I called it wrong, they might get sore.

The chances didn’t seem that bad.

(I’ve done the same. They knew I had.)

 

So I shook my head and walked on by.

He knew the risks as well as I.

He took the chance, I closed my eye

and with that act I let him die.

 

I could have saved a life that day

but chose to look the other way.

 

Now every time I see his wife

I know I should have saved his life.

I see his kids and feel so sad.

They cry at night. They’ve lost their Dad.

 

That guilt is something I must bear

but isn’t something you need share.

If you see a risk that others take,

that puts their health or life at stake ..

 

The question asked, or things you say

could help them live another day.

If YOU see a risk and walk away,

then hope YOU never have to say

 

I could have saved a life today

but chose to look the other way.

 

(This is not my original poem. I just adapted it a bit to the geocaching context.)

 

Here is the original version. It was written about a real incident. (in Canada, I think)

 

I could have saved a life today

but chose to look the other way.

 

It wasn’t that I didn’t care.

I had the time, and I was there

but I didn’t want to seem a fool

and argue over safety rules.

 

I knew he’d done the job before.

if I called it wrong, he might get sore.

The chances didn’t seem that bad.

(I’ve done the same. He knew I had.)

 

So I shook my head and walked on by.

He knew the risks as well as I.

He took the chance, I closed my eye

and with that act I let him die.

 

I could have saved a life that day

but chose to look the other way.

 

Now every time I see his wife

I know I should have saved his life.

I see his kids and feel so sad.

They cry at night. They’ve lost their Dad.

 

That guilt is something I must bear

but isn’t something you need share.

If you see a risk that others take,

that puts their health or life at stake ..

 

… The question asked, or things you say

could help them live another day.

If YOU see a risk and walk away,

then hope YOU never have to say

 

I could have saved a life today

but chose to look the other way.

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

Link to comment
There are plenty of legal caches which are dangerous to find. Those caches would suffer using the special log type system which you proposed, and which would undoubtedly be abused. I dont see danger as being a problem. I enjoy it.

I'm not entirely convinced the log type would be abused. I don't see widespread abuse of NM and NA. It happens now and again. But I don't think it's a systemic problem.

 

I'm also not entirely sure that the caches themselves would suffer. As some have pointed out, there are many who enjoy danger / dangerous caches and would not only not be deterred from hunting them, but may be inclined to give them a second look. If the tag / warning / log / whatever simultaneously discouraged those who are uncomfortable with certain types of caches from hunting, and assisted those who are well-prepared for them in discovering / identifying them, that doesn't seem so bad to me.

Link to comment

 

I'm already curious what will be the reaction to your NA-log. The young guy who dared to post a NA log back in 2009 was told that he should buy diapers in a nearby shop of the mall as he is only afraid of going for the cache. Normally, NA logs coming from someone not local, are even more frowned upon.

 

Cezanne

 

Yes, they are vaguely similar to couch potato finds on virtuals.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

@GeoBain: since you like to give me advice about posting, let me give you some: please read to the end of all new posts in a thread before you reply. Thank you.

 

And let me say that my posting style is none of your concern. I post as I read. Always have, always will.

 

This has nothing to do with your thread, so you may want to stop derailing your topic.

Link to comment

Been following along, but I can't get past your statement that there should be caches in places where one shouldn't officially go. Did you miss the very first thing in the guidelines about placing caches that states all local laws apply? And the part after that stating you should have permission?

 

To me that's like a thief who complains not that he broke the law but that he got caught if you ask me.

 

Argh, I really didnt wanna get dragged into this one. I have done "illegal caches" myself and enjoyed them, "Lost Places" are HUGELY popular here, and some of the most interesting caches. I havent done many of them, and I don't feel qualified enough to discuss whether they should exist or not - there are surely tons and tons of cachers who have much stronger feelings about this issue, and probably great discussions of the past about it that we could link here. In the end there MUST be some consensus at least in the German geocaching community that they are ok to place, list, search, since there are just such huge numbers of them out there.

 

What I'm suggesting is that regardless of the illegality of a cache we should have a way to warn other cachers of dangers.

 

But supposedly your desire is to prevent other cachers from being harmed. The very first line of defense is to not place caches where it is illegal to be. Some places are off limits precisely because of the hazards involved with the location. If you ignore the trespassing issues, all the warnings on the listing are for naught.

Link to comment

Been following along, but I can't get past your statement that there should be caches in places where one shouldn't officially go. Did you miss the very first thing in the guidelines about placing caches that states all local laws apply? And the part after that stating you should have permission?

 

To me that's like a thief who complains not that he broke the law but that he got caught if you ask me.

 

Argh, I really didnt wanna get dragged into this one. I have done "illegal caches" myself and enjoyed them, "Lost Places" are HUGELY popular here, and some of the most interesting caches. I havent done many of them, and I don't feel qualified enough to discuss whether they should exist or not - there are surely tons and tons of cachers who have much stronger feelings about this issue, and probably great discussions of the past about it that we could link here. In the end there MUST be some consensus at least in the German geocaching community that they are ok to place, list, search, since there are just such huge numbers of them out there.

 

What I'm suggesting is that regardless of the illegality of a cache we should have a way to warn other cachers of dangers.

 

There are sufficient warnings in place already. If the guidelines are being ignored, why would anyone take notice of additional warnings?

 

When someone gets killed doing something illegal, it makes the entire sport look like a bunch of lawbreakers. Perhaps there is a great need for an illegal access website in Germany, where people could break laws and brag about it.

 

+1

 

It's kind of hard to lobby for a new rule or log type while at the same time condoning the breaking of laws/current guidelines.

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

 

All three of these logs would be more meaningful to me than "Thanks for the cache" or "quick find" or "great fun" etc. I think we should put enough trust in the community that over time we'd learn how to use these Warning logs.

Link to comment

I really think my approach is more sensible, but maybe I'm wrong and it is easier to drop the "archive hammer" like someone suggested here before.

 

It's not easy to drop the archive hammer. SBA's are NOT well received in my experience.

 

The IS a geocaching cultural issue that needs to be addressed.

I said it earlier, so I agree completely that it is a cultural issue that need to be addressed. Also, people need to stand up for themselves and do what is right instead of worrying about how they will be treated by a small handful of people with very messed up priorities. We are talking about a fatality here.

 

I am not opposed to veit's idea, but I do think that in this specific case, the correct response would have been to have the cache archived rather than warning people about the condition of a catwalk in what was supposed to be a prohibited area. In lesser circumstances, the correct response might have been contact the cache owner first and give them a chance to respond to the situation themselves.

 

Another cultural issue is that many people think figuring things out yourself is part of the experience. Such people are unlikely to use the proposed warning log, especially since they already don't have much to say in the normal logs.

 

 

Link to comment

Been following along, but I can't get past your statement that there should be caches in places where one shouldn't officially go. Did you miss the very first thing in the guidelines about placing caches that states all local laws apply? And the part after that stating you should have permission?

 

To me that's like a thief who complains not that he broke the law but that he got caught if you ask me.

 

Argh, I really didnt wanna get dragged into this one. I have done "illegal caches" myself and enjoyed them, "Lost Places" are HUGELY popular here, and some of the most interesting caches. I havent done many of them, and I don't feel qualified enough to discuss whether they should exist or not - there are surely tons and tons of cachers who have much stronger feelings about this issue, and probably great discussions of the past about it that we could link here. In the end there MUST be some consensus at least in the German geocaching community that they are ok to place, list, search, since there are just such huge numbers of them out there.

 

What I'm suggesting is that regardless of the illegality of a cache we should have a way to warn other cachers of dangers.

 

I'm getting a very strong cultural differences vibe here. I just couldn't for the life of me see a cache placed in the USA or Canada where people have to climb the steel support structure of a private shopping mall sign. Granted it's an unusual sign, unlike anything I've ever seen in North America, and cachers are mostly "hidden" while climbing the sign.

 

I'm tending to agree with the warning proposals that have been put forth, however.

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

 

All three of these logs would be more meaningful to me than "Thanks for the cache" or "quick find" or "great fun" etc. I think we should put enough trust in the community that over time we'd learn how to use these Warning logs.

 

+1

 

It will take time, but I think we will all benefit in the long term.

Link to comment

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocaching.com%2Fseek%2Fcache_details.aspx%3Fguid%3Dc5a37cd3-23ee-4fde-af67-6be602016826

 

Von den Koordinaten und den Logs war schnell klar wo der Cache sein muss, aber ungesichert halt ich es für zu gefährlich zudem dürfte die Location als Privatgrund gelten (ich glaub nicht das der Besitzer jemanden oben sehen möchte) und ein Aufstieg daher illegal sein.

 

From the coordinates and logs was quickly clear where the cache must be, but unsecured halt I to dangerous also will apply the location as a private (not that I think the owner someone would like to see above) and a climb be therefore illegal. It is also too well in the field of view of many Muggels.

This is the first cache which I voluntarily leave out: /.

 

So the reviewer is aware that it is illegal to access this cache, but it remains active? No amount of special log types are going to put a stop to this. The problem is self evident.

 

I'm already curious what will be the reaction to your NA-log. The young guy who dared to post a NA log back in 2009 was told that he should buy diapers in a nearby shop of the mall as he is only afraid of going for the cache. Normally, NA logs coming from someone not local, are even more frowned upon.

 

Cezanne

 

SBA has been deleted, within an hour. Of course the local reviewer certainly received it.

Link to comment

I'm getting a very strong cultural differences vibe here. I just couldn't for the life of me see a cache placed in the USA or Canada where people have to climb the steel support structure of a private shopping mall sign. Granted it's an unusual sign, unlike anything I've ever seen in North America, and cachers are mostly "hidden" while climbing the sign.

 

I'm tending to agree with the warning proposals that have been put forth, however.

 

Yes, I also think it's down to cultural differences a lot. Interestingly enough, Germans for example have a much more relaxed attitude towards "cheating" in school. I think similar cultural issues apply in geocaching where we might be much more relaxed about this issue of illegal access. I do see a point that a lot of risky caches would be gone if we archived them all, but as someone pointed out above, there are plenty of risky caches in the natural world that ARE legal, and so my personal thought is to develop a good warnings system that applies to any cache.

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

I don't think that this will be the case. But lets say it does become this way...then the CO can delete these logs. Again, this is the part where people can banter back and forth about this and that. But we can work on that. Just get the info that finders in the field are seeing, and get it out there for others to see.

 

I'm not entirely convinced the log type would be abused. I don't see widespread abuse of NM and NA. It happens now and again. But I don't think it's a systemic problem.

 

 

I agree. And when we do see a rare NM or NA log that isn't accurate, it can be cleared with the Maintenance log, or discussed in another log via the CO.

Edited by JesandTodd
Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

I don't think that this will be the case. But lets say it does become this way...then the CO can delete these logs. Again, this is the part where people can banter back and forth about this and that. But we can work on that. Just get the info that finders in the field are seeing, and get it out there for others to see.

the CO.

 

Deleting a warning log could be sticky if it's a valid warning. It could open the CO up to liability. Only the person who placed the warning should be allowed to delete it. For those that know occupational safety, think lockout/tagout. The spirit of that industry standard applies here.

Link to comment

I was thinking that the CO could delete those logs with the cooperation of GS. Say with the reviewer or something similiar. Not just have the ability to delete the logs without consideration. Again, I don't know how it will all work out in the end. But something needs to happen here, IMO

 

I get your reasoning, but I still think that the poster of the warning would have to consent or be absent from the site & unresponsive for a determined period of time.

 

It's a real can of worms if an official warning is deleted and then someone gets hurt by the hazard(s) identified in that warning.

Link to comment

So we don't post warning logs that may prevent accidents or deaths because a CO doesn't want the people reading logs to know it's up a weak-limbed tree? So, what's more important here???

 

With a new "Warning" log we may start seeing logs like:

 

"WARNING: A found a tick on me when hiking to this cache."

"WARNING: There's poison ivy nearby."

"WARNING: It's along hike."

 

The meaningful logs may get lost.

I don't think that this will be the case. But lets say it does become this way...then the CO can delete these logs. Again, this is the part where people can banter back and forth about this and that. But we can work on that. Just get the info that finders in the field are seeing, and get it out there for others to see.

the CO.

 

Deleting a warning log could be sticky if it's a valid warning. It could open the CO up to liability. Only the person who placed the warning should be allowed to delete it. For those that know occupational safety, think lockout/tagout. The spirit of that industry standard applies here.

 

If the CO is not going to be allowed to remove spurious logs, then I don't see this working out very well. And if deleting a log you think is spurious but turns out to actually be valid and opens the CO to liability, then I really don't like this idea.

Link to comment

I was thinking that the CO could delete those logs with the cooperation of GS. Say with the reviewer or something similiar. Not just have the ability to delete the logs without consideration. Again, I don't know how it will all work out in the end. But something needs to happen here, IMO

 

Following existing guidelines is an excellent start.

 

I don't see the need to add another log type. If anything, I like the idea of an anonymous report button so people could report caches placed illegally. It already exists in the form of an email to the reviewer, but a report button would simplify it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 8
×
×
  • Create New...