[Feature] Add „Forest Operations“ to the cache attributes

[+DerTomTom]

Please add "Forest Operations" to the hazard section of the cache attributes.

 

I’m owning some caches located in a forest close to my hometown here in Germany. I’ve been in a very positive and open minded discussion with the responsible ranger, sicne some of these caches go a little beyond a simple plastic box. In this context, I also did learn some things regarding the legal aspects of owning a cache out in the forest.

 

It’s common sense, that the cache owner has to inform on all major potential risks/hazards within the listing to cover the legal duty to maintain safety. From the rangers point of view, the forest operations are more or less on the same level of risk as hunting is. Forest operations are also seasonal events at the "commercially" used sections of the forest – Which is true for most of the forest here in Germany (people or communities owning the forest like to earn money from that). The "tree harvesting" itself is often done by big machines in a semiautomatic way and the forest workers don’t have chance to monitor 100 % of the surrounding area. Also the forest workers don’t "clean up" there working area in the evening or for the weekend. So some increased risk might be out there, until they finished work for a certain area. The later might be even more dangerous than currently ongoing operations, because it might look silent and safe, but it isn’t safe at all.

 

To improve coverage of the "legal duty to maintain safety", a new attribute for "forest operations" would be highly appreciated from my point of view. Please let me know, if this is a reasonable request or just a stupid idea – Thanks!

 

Best regards,

DerTomTom

[+niraD]

Would the

Dangerous Area

attribute cover this particular risk/hazard?

 

This seems like a rather specific (and apparently seasonal) danger. Would people use a "Forest Operations" (or perhaps "Logging Operations" would be more clear) attribute to filter caches, either selecting caches without it, or selecting caches with it?

[+cerberus1]

Who has a "legal duty to maintain safety" ?

Good luck with that one.

Since when does safety have anything to do with cache ownership?

If safety was even a consideration, most of the caches I like to do wouldn't be available...

 

To me, if we hafta keep holding everyone's hand, and covering our cans in the process, then this hobby's got more issues than your extra attribute will help.

 

You're kinda right, it is all about common sense...

[+cerberus1]

It’s common sense...

Though we do have the Hunting attribute, we temp-disable our caches in game lands during the very-busy two-week rifled season.

If the area is seeing a lot of work done, or access issues for a limited time, it's perfectly okay to temp-disable until things are good-to-go again.

- Just be sure to keep everyone notified of what's going on, by a write note on the cache page.

[+DerTomTom]

Thanks for your feedback!

 

According to my understanding of a local reviewer feedback, the Dangerous Area attribute was intended for places close to cliffs or close to fast moving traffic and things like that. But my understanding might be wrong…

 

The wording “Logging Operations” sounds very reasonable for me – I picked “Forest Operations” due to my bad English. Selecting by “Logging Operations” is most likely not the case, but selecting by Poisonous Plants or Dangerous Animals is most likely not the case as well. It’s more like a “be careful, there might be…” thing, isn’t it?

 

Perhaps seasonal is also not the correct term. In Germany, hunting is restricted to specific seasons for specific animals. Overall the risk by hunting is present all over the year, the huntsman are just going for different animals. Therefore a static hunting attribute makes perfect sense for me. “Logging Operations” might occur randomly at any time at any area. Sure they will not be there all over the year, but they will not be announced upfront.

[+NanCycle]

“Logging Operations” might occur randomly at any time at any area. Sure they will not be there all over the year, but they will not be announced upfront.

 

I think the " Dangerous Area" Attribute could cover this, with an explanation in the cache description of what the danger is.

[+noncentric]

“Logging Operations” might occur randomly at any time at any area. Sure they will not be there all over the year, but they will not be announced upfront.

 

I think the " Dangerous Area" Attribute could cover this, with an explanation in the cache description of what the danger is.

+1

Using an attribute is good to help cachers filter in/out specific caches while running PQ's. Perhaps risk averse cachers will exclude caches that have the "Dangerous Area" attribute.

That being said, it's also a good idea to explain the 'danger' in the cache description. If a cacher downloads an entire area into their GPSr or the Geocaching-R app, then decides they want to look for the caches in that forest area, then they won't even see the attributes. But they will be able to read the cache description.

[+T.D.M.22]

Thanks for your feedback!

 

According to my understanding of a local reviewer feedback, the Dangerous Area attribute was intended for places close to cliffs or close to fast moving traffic and things like that. But my understanding might be wrong…

 

The wording “Logging Operations” sounds very reasonable for me – I picked “Forest Operations” due to my bad English. Selecting by “Logging Operations” is most likely not the case, but selecting by Poisonous Plants or Dangerous Animals is most likely not the case as well. It’s more like a “be careful, there might be…” thing, isn’t it?

 

Perhaps seasonal is also not the correct term. In Germany, hunting is restricted to specific seasons for specific animals. Overall the risk by hunting is present all over the year, the huntsman are just going for different animals. Therefore a static hunting attribute makes perfect sense for me. “Logging Operations” might occur randomly at any time at any area. Sure they will not be there all over the year, but they will not be announced upfront.

 

Forest operations is better. It could include controlled burns, construction etc.

[+Manville Possum]

Who has a "legal duty to maintain safety" ?

Good luck with that one.

Since when does safety have anything to do with cache ownership?

If safety was even a consideration, most of the caches I like to do wouldn't be available...

 

To me, if we hafta keep holding everyone's hand, and covering our cans in the process, then this hobby's got more issues than your extra attribute will help.

 

You're kinda right, it is all about common sense...

 

I'm with you on that. It's not my legal duty to assist anyone on a cache hunt.

 

As for a new attribute? Won't. Never. Happen.

[+GeoTrekker26]

The way I read the original post it is the ranger that wants to the cachers informed of "hazards" to protect the ranger and forest owners from liability.

[+Touchstone]

The way I read the original post it is the ranger that wants to the cachers informed of "hazards" to protect the ranger and forest owners from liability.

That's kind of the way I read it as well. If that's the case, I'm afraid that the Ranger is in for a surprise: most folks probably won't even look at the Description, let alone the Attributes. It's really up to the Land Manager to post warnings of hazardous work in the area. Expecting people to get this information on a Listing page, or even the website for the area, is just asking for trouble IMO.

 

I think the Dangerous Area Attribute is sufficient, and is used for a variety of hazards in my area.

[+cerberus1]

In my area, when game lands or forests are logging, or doing controlled burns, they post that area, or at least put up signage, warning the public to be cautious or stay away.

[+niraD]

According to my understanding of a local reviewer feedback, the Dangerous Area attribute was intended for places close to cliffs or close to fast moving traffic and things like that. But my understanding might be wrong…

I'm trying to imagine a definition for "Dangerous Area" that would include dangers like nearby cliffs or fast-moving traffic, but that would not include dangers like logging activity.

[ohgood]

The way I read the original post it is the ranger that wants to the cachers informed of "hazards" to protect the ranger and forest owners from liability.

Basically:

Dynamite in a hole, that has no signage, but instead expects everyone in the area to know which webpage to view before they enter the hole.... Is a way of preventing liability issues?

 

I think the forest worker hasn't thought this one through.

[cezanne]

According to my understanding of a local reviewer feedback, the Dangerous Area attribute was intended for places close to cliffs or close to fast moving traffic and things like that. But my understanding might be wrong…

I'm trying to imagine a definition for "Dangerous Area" that would include dangers like nearby cliffs or fast-moving traffic, but that would not include dangers like logging activity.

 

Well, of course the attribute covers all sorts of dangers, but the difference between a nearby cliff and logging activity is that the first is present all the time while the latter is something temporary and can happen at any spot in a forest area (where the majority of non urban caches are hidden).

 

In my country there need to be signs informing of logging activities and typically these then forbid access to the area. It can happen however that not all entry points are marked by signs but cache attributes will not help there either. What's of course an issue is that often hikers ignore such signs and in particular on weekends in the belief that there will be no forestry works then (which quite often is true). They of course do that at their own risk and again an attribute will not change anything.

 

If a cache owner gets notice of forestry works that block the way to a cache he/she owns, the cache should be temporarily disabled. That's not an issue to be handled by attributes in my opinion.

 

I cannot imagine a single cacher in Germany who is not aware of the fact that logging activities can take place in a forest and I cannot imagine that there are no signs in such cases in Germany - think of the people who visit the forest without wanting to find a cache there. What might be an issue is just that some cachers want to absolutely find a cache and are less willing to comply with what is temporarily (or permanently) forbidden than people who do not come to visit a cache.

[+Walts Hunting]

I guess your current choice is to write it in the description which probably gets read 10% of the time (less for me) or hope for the attribute which less than that will see or care about. I think you greatly over estimate the attention cachers pay to the page. Given the huge number of caches now it is mostly load, find, log and move on. On traditional caches I read way less than 10%. So all this effort is nice but won't have much affect.

[+DerTomTom]

My intention for raising the discussion on such a attribut was to have the coverage of the legal aspects on this topic in a way, that's kind of convenient for the owner...

 

In Germany there are also signs at all the major tracks to/from a logging area. Most of the time these tracks are also blocked. Legal aspects for the forest workers and the ranger are covered by this. However - Everyone (also the ranger) knows, Geocachers are "not always" using the major tracks.

 

It's also clear (also to the ranger), that "nobody" reads the listing before he runs into a problem at the cache (missing tools, code for a lock and so on)...

 

Coming back to the legal aspect, it's similar to the funny information, you find on several products - It's dangerous to step on a ladder or microwaves are not for pets - Unfortunately there is some reason for this kind of product information...

 

However - The proposal of adding a text section should be "good enough" as well, but is less convenient...

 

DerTomTom

[cezanne]

Coming back to the legal aspect, it's similar to the funny information, you find on several products - It's dangerous to step on a ladder or microwaves are not for pets - Unfortunately there is some reason for this kind of product information...

 

There's the general Groundspeak disclaimer anyhow on any cache page.

[+The A-Team]

I guess your current choice is to write it in the description which probably gets read 10% of the time (less for me) or hope for the attribute which less than that will see or care about. I think you greatly over estimate the attention cachers pay to the page. Given the huge number of caches now it is mostly load, find, log and move on. On traditional caches I read way less than 10%. So all this effort is nice but won't have much affect.

While it may be true that there are lots of people that skip the description on park & grabs, I don't think the same can be said for cachers heading out to look for caches in a forest. In my experience, such cachers will almost always read the description, often before even leaving home.