Jump to content

[FEATURE] Cache Page Warning cover sheet


Snoogans

Recommended Posts

The rough idea that I have is to add a check box to add another page to a cache that would be optional and tied to Groundspeak's disclaimer. (Sorry Brian, that's work for you.)

 

If a CO so chose they could add warnings line by line that would need to be acknowledged by the end user before being able to download or open a cache page.

 

The CO could have users check off each sentence, paragraph, or the entire warning. I would do it sentence by sentence personally. How many people actually read software agreements as opposed to skipping to the bottom and agreeing to get on with it. When you have to acknowledge by sentence or paragraph, the onus is clearly on the finder to be responsible and prepared.

 

Additional lines/fields could be added the same way you add answers to polls.

 

Also, (maybe) a log type to request a warning cover sheet that would require action from the CO much the same as a needs maintenance log that would also show up in the attributes of the cache page and flag a timed response from a reviewer.... :unsure:

 

This may help reduce incidents and accidents at a particular cache. It would also be a proactive measure on Groundspeak's, the CO's, the finder's part to address cacher safety as well as possibly further reducing liability.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

Good way to get people to avoid that cache. We get enough complaints around here about the beta maps pop-up you have to check box through. Imagine the complaints about cache pages that start giving you a pop-up page to acknowledge.

 

How would something like this work with/effect PQs? Would you have a pop-up on your device before it lets you select that cache to navigate too. Maybe you would have to go through the page before you can download the PQ?

 

Overall i don't see thins being a good thing. I think any safety issues can be addressed in the cache listing itself. Like you said how many people actually read through the software or other agreements? They usually just click right through it. How would this be any different? Its just another annoyance people don't want to put up with. Besides there are no liability issues the site or CO have to deal with so its not like it needs to be there for legal protection.

Link to comment

I'm also not so sure about this suggestion: it would be more a nuisance to many people (having to click checkboxes) and they would find ways around it quickly (scripts that automatically check the boxes etc.). And I don't see how this could ever work with any mobile device.

 

However, as to adding specific cache-relevant warnings ABOVE any other information about the cache (description, spoilers, logs) so you have to scroll past (but not check any boxes) - all for it.

Link to comment

As I said, it is a rough idea. Let me refine it a bit more & maybe an IT type can make it work...As difficulty and terrain rise, so does personal risk.

 

The basic idea is to reinforce the need to prepare to the seeker of a cache. Probably not needed for 1 & 2 D/T.

 

A user must acknowledge they are aware of posted hazards and inherent(unposted)hazards of elevated D/T if the CO chooses to use that option. (Addendum to the Groundspeak disclaimer.)

 

I would use this feature as the owner of several high D/T caches. I could care less if my caches get less visits if it means that the finders of my high D/T caches come well prepared and I NEVER have to go through what the CO in Germany is going through right now after the death of a 21yo seeker of his/her cache.

 

Besides, less finds means less maintenance. So be it. I'm all for it. I hope it has merit with the developers of this site and they can make it work. :unsure:

Link to comment

 

I would use this feature as the owner of several high D/T caches. I could care less if my caches get less visits if it means that the finders of my high D/T caches come well prepared and I NEVER have to go through what the CO in Germany is going through right now after the death of a 21yo seeker of his/her cache.

 

 

Exactly.

Link to comment

I think your idea has some merit, but I also feel that it each persons' responsibility to determine their own risk level. If I go to a cache, regardless of the ratings, and I don't feel comfortable with it, I move on.

 

I think to add your acknowledgement pages would be like killing flys with a shotgun. Effective, but not necessary.

Link to comment

I think to add your acknowledgement pages would be like killing flys with a shotgun. Effective, but not necessary.

 

You are right. That's more an occupational safety measure. :anibad::laughing:

 

It could be tedious in an activity meant to be fun.

 

Groundspeak's disclaimer is a good one, but it doesn't seem to protect the CO 100%: (I'm no lawyer. I could be wrong.)

 

Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com.

 

I'm for covering my buttski on my high D/T caches. Some of which are near sheer drops of 20+, 50+, to 100+ feet.

 

ca01b7cd-a45c-4c35-ad06-180e8fed007f.jpg

 

f0e3173a-fbe1-4093-8531-491df43b7a79.jpg

Link to comment
I would use this feature as the owner of several high D/T caches.

I think your idea revolves around the principal that, as it stands now, seekers of your high D/T rated caches could be seeking them with inadequate preparation. Let's gnaw on that one a bit... Try to imagine someone wanting to find a Snoog cache. Looking at one of your cache pages, let's see what information is already available to them;

 

Let's use "A Claustrophobic's Nightmare/Just Say NO to Crack" as an example.

(Bare in mind, I've never been to this cache, so all I can do is guess, based on what is available for everyone who cares to look)

 

The difficulty is 5 stars, meaning:

Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache

 

The terrain is 5 stars, meaning:

Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult

 

The attributes tell us:

There are cliffs and/or falling rocks nearby.

This is a dangerous area.

 

The cache description tells us it is in a tight crack in the rocks, and that the area is so rough, only 4-wheel drive vehicles should be utilized. Some nearby cracks are 100' deep. We can also see that, due to its nature, the buddy system would be a great idea.

 

The hint supports my theory that the cache is in a crack in the rocks, and tells us this crack is pretty deep.

 

The photo gallery tells us that the crack is pretty narrow, which is suggested in the title, and suggests that, in the event of falling rocks from above, you have very little space in which to dodge. We can also tell that this cache is in an arid climate, so having extra water would be a real good idea.

 

I haven't read the past logs, (which I would do if I were to hunt a cache like this), but I would imagine those give us even more information about the conditions around ground zero.

 

If we add up all this information, anyone with an IQ higher than a turnip would see that attempting this cache could prove quite hazardous to ones health. Knowing that this is a rather dangerous cache, what kind of person do you suppose would attempt it unprepared? Someone who ignores all the warnings all ready on the cache page, out of some idiotic desire to prove how macho they are, or someone who never even read the cache page? Taking each type individually, can you envision either person changing their outlook because you put yet another warning on the cache page?

 

Caching, in and of itself, is a risky hobby.

 

As I've proven time and again, it's riskier if you are stupid.

 

My wife will tell you, based on her experience with me, "You can't fix stupid".

 

I would take that one step farther by saying, "Nor, can you legislate stupid away".

Link to comment

I thought the OP was taking this serious. This idea is so over the top as to contradict the seriousness of the issue.

 

I did say in the op that this is a rough idea and I am taking this very seriously.

 

For the hider there is a review process that may have been inadequate in the most recent death of Willimax in Germany.

 

There is also a reporting structure for the listing service (NM & SBA) that is culturally flawed. Nobody likes the cache police.

 

There is no organized standard of care for the finder. Here's our (Groundspeak's) disclaimer. Swim at your own risk.... And that worked for 10 years. I seriously doubt that attitude will fly over the Mainstream Event Horizon.

 

What has changed is the growth rate of listed caches and new cachers. With that we have an increased frequency of deaths.

 

3 deaths from 2003 to November of 2009. The 3rd being on the cusp of the 1 million listed caches mark.

 

 

We hit a million and bound wayyy past it and boom, 2 deaths just 5 months apart and this last death was easily prevented. :huh:

 

At some point we as a community need to sit up and take notice and reflect... Is swim at your own risk really the best policy?

 

Can't we DO something to educate or at least address the issue of safety? Or is it sombody else's problem?

 

If folks aren't reading the cache pages to get safety info, how do we reach them?

 

My thought for this feature was to get between the coords and the user to at least get the acknowledgement that they were warned. That the CO and the listing service ensured some measure of extra care was given for their safety.

 

We may never know which cache warning saved a life, but if the frequency is reduced you can prove that it works.

 

Sadly, I'm starting to think that this feature won't fly... But I still believe that Groundspeak at some point will take notice and do something, anything, to endorse and support an effort to create a geocaching culture of safety.

 

My advice to Groundspeak and cache owners is that the holy disclaimer is not so teflon coated. Start at the lawsuite(s) and work backward as you ponder the current status quo.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...