Paerole

Exactly what I mean, underwater caches that are accessible by a basic dive without scuba gear are much more prevalent than scuba gear caches yet the relationship is not reflexive. For example you can label a scuba cache and underwater cache but you cannot (or should not) label a basic dive that doesn't require scuba gear a 'scuba gear' cache. It would make much more sense, if it's such a huge problem to add one more icon for an underwater cache, to change the scuba gear icon into an underwater icon and then have the description detail whether it required gear or not, this would make it MUCH easier to locate underwater caches. The problem with PQing 'may require swimming' is there are A LOT of caches that may require swimming but are not underwater. It would take a lot of work to filter through these. Having a diving/underwater cache that doesn't require scuba gear is a much more unique situation/attribute worthy than the other examples listed above which would justifiably be labeled with icons such as 'may need to climb' or whatever else as there is not as big a difference between those as there is between 'needs scuba gear' or 'may require swimming' and 'underwater cache' (no scuba gear required). For example if you were to PQ for 'may need to swim' attribute you are likely going to pull hundreds of caches that may require swimming to an island or something of that nature, there are TONS of them, to go through that entire list looking for the underwater caches would be unnecessarily time consuming and difficult when there could just as easily be an icon added for an underwater cache (or at the very least have the scuba icon changed to a general underwater cache as 'scuba gear required' is much too specific and there are sooo few of these caches that even exist).

This is more so in the interest of making these caches more accessible. Up a tree without a ladder or whatever other descriptions given are a little bit different than an underwater cache that doesn't require scuba gear. The reason I say this is because "Requires swimming" is going to pull A LOT more caches in a PQ than will be underwater caches as there are lots of island caches and various other water bound caches which require swimming but are not diving caches/underwater caches. That being said also marking underwater caches that are 5-20 feet would not be appropriate to use scuba gear required attribute as they don't require scuba gear. Cache out of reach needs ladder = may require climbing and this is definitely a fair application especially in comparison to having an underwater cache icon. Cache in a tree that you don't have to climb = winter friendly, this is just a general hide, again this is not really comparable. All of the rest of the examples given are just general caches and are not comparable to an underwater cache situation where there is no middle ground, they are just standard hides. Underwater caches would likely be more prevalent than scuba gear required caches even, so why not, if there are too many icons as you say, change 'requires scuba gear' to 'underwater cache' and then just have 'requires scuba gear' in the description so that non-scuba underwater caches can be PQ'd?

I was thinking recently that it may be a good idea to have a new attribute icon added for caches that are placed underwater but are not deep enough to require scuba gear. Currently we have two attribute icons which can sort of be used to label an underwater cache (swimming required, and scuba gear required) but these are both on the extreme and offer no middle ground. This new icon would be referring to caches placed under water that are between 5-20ft deep (easily retrieved without any additional gear). If we were to have this added as an attribute icon it would be much easier to locate these caches, as it would give the ability to find by running a PQ for the underwater attribute. I am in the very near future going to be placing some caches around my city that would fit this description, as well as a friend of mine who has already started placing. Just a suggestion, would love to see what other people think of this.