[FEATURE] New logtype: "Warning"

[veit]

Please implement a new logtype "Warning", which cachers can use to warn other cachers of dangers to health and life with a particular cache that might not be obvious right away, or that the cache owner and possibly other cachers might not have seen. Those warnings should be made clearly visible on the cache page, maybe directly under the spoilers - but even just having them as sortable logs would be a first step.

 

Full discussion about the how and why here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203

[4wheelin_fool]

Please implement a new logtype "Warning", which cachers can use to warn other cachers of dangers to health and life with a particular cache that might not be obvious right away, or that the cache owner and possibly other cachers might not have seen. Those warnings should be made clearly visible on the cache page, maybe directly under the spoilers - but even just having them as sortable logs would be a first step.

 

Full discussion about the how and why here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203

 

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.

[+niraD]

Are these new "warning" logs going to be displayed above all the other logs? Will the CO be able to delete bogus/abusive "warning" logs?

 

Some people don't read the cache description at all. Even more people avoid reading any logs until they've found the cache, or at least until they've arrived on site and searched for the cache. If warnings are going to be at all effective, then they belong in the cache description. That still isn't a guarantee, but it's better than burying them in the logs.

 

When the CO is irresponsible enough not to warn visitors about such dangers, then it seems to me that the existing system of NM/NA logs is sufficient.

[+Kochibu]

This is not the slightest bit useful.

[veit]

@NiraD: I agree that ideally the warnings should be in the cache description (in fact, I first thought of an editable wiki like section up there). At the moment I just think that a logtype can be implemented easier, and programming-wise it IS possible to simply make those logs part of the cache description above. Minor tweaks really (like whether COs can delete those logs - in my opinion, why not).

Edited December 20, 2011 by veit

[+RIclimber]

When would it be used? Should I post a warning because it's a micro near a busy road? What about any cache in the woods? Ticks can be deadly!

 

I vote cachers should use their brain. If you don't feel safe, don't do it! I know I don't read logs before going, and I'd delete any logs on my caches.

[veit]

Let people decide themselves, when they use the log. About your examples: I wouldn't post a warning near an obviously busy road, but might post one if I noticed that it's behind a corner, or people regularly speed past or something else out of the ordinary. And your ticks example is excellent: I've done caches where there were warnings about an unusual amount of ticks in the vicinity...causing me to take extra care there afterwards.

 

So yes, I also vote for cachers using their brain when warning other cachers. And I vote for you using your brain before you delete any logs.

[+baloo&bd]

Sufficient warning currently exist and each and every person who caches knows and is made aware of the fact that every time they look for a cache they do so at their own peril.

 

Logs would start to be abused as posting warning for poison ivy, high muggle traffic, steep grades, climbing, etc. all of which are already handled by the cache description or attributes.

 

The example given in the OP appears to call for the current guidelines to be enforced rather than additional warning. Since the cache was in an area that was off-limits and this was ignored, why would the warning make any difference. Truly wish it never happened, however a warning would not have appeared to make any difference here or going forward.

[+cerberus1]

I don't see a warning note/flag/whatever being helpful at all.

Depending on your physical abilities and comfort level, poison ivy, ticks, ice/snow/rain, anything could be posted as a warning to others. These are all considered a given to most who play outdoors.

The OP himself states that he doesn't see an issue with obviously busy roads, where this would scare the you-know-what outta me.

- So, where would you draw the line ?

"Why didn't someone warn me!" - another phrase for those who don't feel they are responsible for their own actions.

I believe most use common sense and choice when deciding to go after a hide and an added warning to do one they're not capable of/comfortable with isn't needed.

Cache safe.

[+Lil Devil]

IANAL, but somehow I think that having a log of this type would open up the cache owner, and probably also the previous finders, to liability. If someone sees a danger, but doesn't bother to log it, they could be liable if a future finder gets hurt.

 

Same reason that danger/safety is not in the guidelines.

[veit]

I have enough trust in the community that this Warnings logtype would not be abused and that over time a feeling of when it's right to use them and when not would evolve. The NM and NA types don't seem to be abused either.

[+Chokecherry]

THere are numerous ways to communicate dangers about a cache that simply need to be utilized by the people at hand. I don't believe a warning log is needed or warranted.

[+cx1]

I would like to express my support for a warning-type log.

It can sometimes be difficult to glean useful information out of "found it" logs. Also needing to read though all of the 'found it' logs can lead to spoilers which detract from the caching experience for many people. I currently put warning type information in my 'found it' logs if I feel that special care or attention might help the next seeker.

 

But I also know that personally I do not regularly read cache logs until I have already run into an issue of some sort. But if there was a way for a previous cache finder to highlight potential danger I might be getting into without me having to read about what they had for lunch, how the weather was that day, who they were with etc etc (basically all the polite chit-chat of typical 'found it' logs) then I would take advantage of having that warning information and read it.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

In an era where the typical Found It log is "TFTC" (and in some cases blank!), would this type of log even be used by enough people to make it useful?

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps the skull and crossbones attribute indicating danger could be user applied, in a similar way as the needs maintenance, and it could be colored red.

[I!]

I don't think there's a middle ground worth considering between

1. Hazards you might reasonably be expected to encounter - use your common sense.
   
2. Unexpectedly dangerous features - disable cache until remedial action taken by CO.

So, don't bother with Warning logs (that useless middle ground). Get anonymous reporting sorted instead.

[+GeoBain]

Perhaps the skull and crossbones attribute indicating danger could be user applied, in a similar way as the needs maintenance, and it could be colored red.

 

Perhaps we could change the cache listing to a wiki style listing.

 

The hider would write up the original and then we just let everyone do whatever they want to your listing.

 

The whole thing about this being just a listing service is silly anyway. We know that caches aren't really the property of the hider.

[+kantear]

for the recent tragedy of GC37G4T ...

 

i agree, a "wiki" type listing would be just asking for trouble/spam/flames.

 

however new "finder attributes" icons as mentioned in this thread .. could be used and would be somewhat universal and easy to follow ... like "heights" or "sharp dropoffs" or maybe "potential (seasonal) high water" or as in the case of the one above "irregular footing surfaces" etc ... etc ... new icon types could be requested as the situations arise.

 

caches can be placed in areas familiar to the placer, or placed quickly in the discovery of a relatively "cache clean" or "hot" area ... so the placer may not know notice or realize these additional attributes.

 

so i kindof agree with the thought of finder input that can be reviewed by someone hunting a cache.

 

my 2 cents.

Edited December 30, 2011 by kantear

[+lodgebarn]

My view is that many people don't read the full listing let alone the attributes so it would be unlikely to help at all.

[+"The Bearclaws"]

I was once hunting a cache in the winter and came really close to stepping/falling into what I think was an abandoned septic tank with a missing cover approximately 20 X 20. The snow was pretty deep and had drifted over this hole, quite a booby trap. My foot landed just on the edge causing some of the drift to fall in exposing the opening, lucky me. This was a completely unforeseen, unexpected, unanticipated serious life or limb hazard to a cache seeker (the type of hazard I believe veit means to have a way to address). My first thoughts were how to warn others. Envisioning a family coming here with children running around, I caved in the rest of the drift and put something temporarily over the hole. Its been several years and I was a fairly new cacher at the time but I think I wrote about it in my log and posted a Needs Maintenance to the cache owner. In order to get a relatively quick response from a reviewer, if I ever encounter something like this again I plan to post a Needs Archived log with an explanation and photos. Depending on how a reviewer sees it, caches can get unarchived later.

 

Cache site conditions can change anytime and I do hope management can come up with a practical solution. In the meantime I will not hesitate to listen to my gut feelings and conscience in using the Needs Archived log as a form of 911 call and I hope anyone finding a hidden hazard to life or limb at one of my caches will do the same.

Edited December 31, 2011 by "The Bearclaws"

[+Ronbu]

Please implement a new logtype "Warning", which cachers can use to warn other cachers of dangers to health and life with a particular cache that might not be obvious right away, or that the cache owner and possibly other cachers might not have seen. Those warnings should be made clearly visible on the cache page, maybe directly under the spoilers - but even just having them as sortable logs would be a first step.

 

Full discussion about the how and why here: http://forums.Ground...howtopic=287203

 

I found this thread after posting on the thread from which it sprang.

My posts there may have been better posted here but at this stage I will simply crosslink to my two principal posts.

 

The first puts my point of view regarding individual cacher responsibility:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&st=717 (Post 717)

 

The second sets out the reasons why I would NOT support additional warnings:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=287203&st=820 (Post 820)

 

I strongly hold the views

 

• that if all cachers strictly followed the guidelines set out by Groundspeak, particularly with regard to cache placement PERMISSION, we would have far fewer illegal caches,
  (NOT necessarily less interesting or risky to approach)
  and
• that sufficient provision is made within the current publishing and posting regime provided by Groundspeak so that additional warnings would be superfluous.

That is not to say that the current regime could not be improved.

Rather I suggest that if we believe that the current regime has weaknesses we should be working to correct those before we look at adding to what is already a fairly comprehensive system.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Ronbu