Landowner knowledge of dangerous condition - what is required in Idaho?

In Idaho, the duty owed by landowners to persons injured on their property depends on the injured person's status: invitee, licensee or trespasser. The duty owed to a licensee is to warn of any known dangerous conditions (also described as a landowner's duty to "share his knowledge" of any dangerous condition). Evans v. Park, 112 Idaho 400, 401, 732 P.2d 369, 370 (1987). QUESTION 1: For the landowner's duty to warn to arise, does one have to show simply the knowledge of the existence of the condition itself (e.g., a possible trip hazard), or must one also show knowledge of the condition PLUS appreciation of the hazard/danger posed by the condition? QUESTION 2: If proof of appreciation of the hazard is required, is it limited to the landowner's subjective knowledge, or is an objective "knew or reasonable should have known" standard to be applied. Can a landowner simply say he didn't think it was dangerous to escape liability? (See, dicta in Harrison v. Taylor, 115 Idaho 588, 768 P.2d 1321, 1328 (1989) re: the "question raised at oral argument," which references this difference between knowledge of the condition vs. knowledge of the hazard, but in a case involving an invitee, not a licensee.) QUESTION 3: If an objective "knew or should have known" standard is to be applied, what factors are considered? Does foreseeability play a role in a licensee case? If so, is this a question of fact for the jury? (See, dicta in Oswald v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 167 Idaho 540, 473 P.3d 809, 824 (Idaho 2020) -- another invitee case discussing foreseeability.)--