Max 1996
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Max 1996
-
-
On 6/20/2022 at 11:01 AM, MartyBartfast said:
You won't find that word used in the US (or the UK) very widely, if at all, as it's not part of the English Language; I don't even know what it means or translates to, does it just come from the name of the Biltema store or does it have a meaning in some other language?
FWFW of all the "pole" caches I've done in the UK, none of them have anything in the name to identify them as such.23 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:Curious how 1332 caches got published in the Czech Republic with the name of a business in the cache name, contrary to the Geocache Hiding Guidelines. Here in the USA, you can't say "Dollar General" in a cache name - you have to say "50 Cent Colonel."
22 hours ago, thebruce0 said:"Fishing pole required" will definitely not be made an attribute. That's just one type of item to handle a certain task. We have quite a few caches around here that require 'fishing' in some form to attain the container, and the two most common "special tools" are natural (look around for a long stick) or a telescopic pole (many people have 12-24' poles they take with them everywhere just in case). Ladders are already commonly owned for tree, fences, caches that are attached high and require physically being at the attachment point.
But 'fishing' style caches could be anything from out on a ridiculously high limb to a nano up a lamp post in a parking lot. I don't know anyone around here who's used a fishing pole for any of the above.
Just FYI, the reason I specifically used "fishing rod caches" in the title is that this cache type is most commonly identified as "Angelcache" in German. "Angel" means fishing rod.
A lot of them are hung up in such a way that a ladder does not work, but a telescopic hook is required.
-
1
-
-
On 6/19/2022 at 6:26 PM, Hügh said:
I generally agree with the Australian wiki's definition of "specialized equipment": pieces of safety equipment that require training from a certified professional to operate. They deserve attributes because you cannot simply jerry-rig a tool together from things in your trunk. You need to come prepared or prepared to give up, or else you will die.
Admittedly, this does not explain the existence of the:
but either way, "attributes were created for some things in the past" isn't exactly the strongest argument for creating more. What about:
- Ladder required
- Lock-picking kit required
- Screwdriver/drill required
- Magnet required
- Non-standard logbook (ie. scratching name into wood, CD, or other non-paper materials; need the right tool for that!)
- QR-code scanning device required
- Internet connection required
- Writing implement required
- Geocache-finding skills required
Where do you draw the line?
I think KRON family already answered this pretty well, but I will jump in with a couple of more general points.
- What is the general reason for you and others opposing the addition of a new attribute in this thread? If it were introduced, and there are no caches it applies to in your area, then this change would have no effect on you. There are already many very specific attributes that have no real use in large parts of the world, i.e. "may require snowshoes" or "Abandoned mine nearby". I have never seen a cache these legitimately apply to, yet I am not advocating for their removal. Not every attribute has to apply to the caches in your home zone.
- "Special tool required" is an attribute that is intentionally vague to leave it open to cover all the edge cases. "Pole required" caches are no longer an edge case, and will become even less so as time goes on. They have already spread from scandinavia - where the term "Biltema" comes from as mentioned above - to many countries in europe.
- Many of the special tools that one could require, i.e. lockpicks, magnets, flashlights, are small enough to where you can easily carry them at all times without much effort, meaning that I can be prepared for most non-pole caches before reading the description. For pole-required caches, this is not the case (especially if you prefer to go by bike or foot), which is why the option to filter these caches out is especially required.
-
.png)
2
-
.png)
1
-
2
-
36 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:
Good luck with that. Would you also like reviewers to enforce your vision of Difficulty and Terrain ratings for these caches? They'd probably want to double their pay before agreeing to either.
It put this as an hypothetical, as in: As long as reviewers don't actively enforce a consistent rating, and do this for the many caches that already exist, there will not be consistency. Hence, any attempt to designate and filter fishing pole caches by D/T rating alone is doomed to failure.
I am not advocating for this type of enforcement, however I would like to see some consistent definition in the guidelines from GCHQ. The definition in the post by barefootjeff seems the most sensible to me, but that is not the issue of this post.
Honestly, I don't really understand why you are against this. The reasons you gave seem to be against a lot of the less common attributes in general, something you could just easily ignore.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:
These are things requiring training to use, safety equipment such as helmets or life jackets, and are not part of the caching tool kit you can carry easily, or the tool kit the average geocacher would carry most of the time. Boats, large ladders, and rope climbing or abseiling equipment are examples. For example, a technical tree climb requiring ropes etc. would be a T5. But a free climb without the need for special equipment would be 4.5 or lower (often much lower). Once you’re up there if it’s hard to open or find the cache then that would be reflected in the D rating. A pole cache (tree fishing) on the other hand, would be generally be low Terrain in most cases if it’s easy to get to the position you need to be at, but higher Difficulty to reflect a tricky manipulation.
Thank you, that is helpful and actually the way I would handle the D/T ratings for fishing rod caches as well if it were up to me. Unfortunately, as the official guidelines are very vague, people just make their own interpretations. Also this ambiguity is often used to create easy-to-find caches for matrix completion, notably some owners will switch between D5 and T5 for fishing rod caches depending on the requirement. There's also the "easy 5/5", just hide a mystery cache where you have to find the location of a picture with a fishing rod final.
-
50 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:
Having said all that I'm not sure adding a specific attribute would be worth the coding effort, particularly given outstanding issues waiting to be fixed.
Given that they have added attributes fairly recently, so one can hope that it should not be too complicated. I would also take this change over most other issues, this would be a definite quality of life improvement.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:
I've found more than 1,000 caches rated T3 or higher, and more than 1,000 caches rated D3 or higher, across 45 states in the USA. I have never seen one single cache that required a fishing pole to hook a container from up in a tree.
A new attribute needs to be relevant worldwide. I would not look forward to explaining what "biltema" means to geocachers who are curious about when to use such an attribute.
I like the idea of using the "no tree climbing required" and "special tool required" attributes in combination. This would allow filtering out biltema caches where those attributes are properly applied, without sweeping in too many non-biltema caches.
- Prior to creating this post, I was not aware that this type of cache does not seem to be as common in the USA. I suspect that, if this were the case, we would already have such an attribute. However, what is your definition for world wide relevancy? Does something have to exist is USA to be a world wide issue? I know that these caches exist in many countries in europe, and while I have mostly found caches in Germany, here they make up to about 5% of all caches in some regions. Is this not relevant?
- Obviously, the attribute should not be called "Biltema cache" but something like "Fishing rod required", with an correspondig icon that makes the application obvious.
- As mentioned in my original post, I want a way to filter this type of cache when I'm on a tour without a fishing pole. Having to rely on owners adding these two attributes would be very unreliable, especially since I don't want to filter out other "special tool required" caches, which are often some of the best around.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
GCHQ has advised that a fishing "pole" is not considered to be specialised equipment and, as the finder is standing on the ground beneath the cache, the terrain rating is that of the land traversed to get to the finders position.
and this:
A tree fishing geocache should have both attributes "no tree climbing required" and "special tool required" to allow finders to search for, and know what to expect at GZ.
Sure, the "special tool required" attribute can apply to many things, but usually there's something in the description to say what specific tool is needed. Maybe this vagueness is a good thing if this encourages people to read the descriptions.
- The definition of the local wiki seems irrelevant to me, no offence. As I said, there is no consistency in Germany and many other countries, and as long as GC.com doesn't add a clear standard that is then retroactively enforced by the reviewers, there won't be. Also, if GCHQ doesn't consider an 8m telescopic pole, that is specifically bought and used for geocaching, specialised equipment (ignoring how little sense that makes) then the special tool required attribute shouldn't apply, right?
- If the point of attributes is to get people to read the description, then why do attributes for UV-lights or wireless beacons already exist? There are less caches of either type around. Additionally, the description does not help me if I want to filter a cache type when planning a caching-trip, which is why I want the attribute.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Quote
I've only seen a handful of caches like that
QuoteSo I don't feel they're "extremely" common at all.
You both seem to be Americans, I can't judge what your caches are like. Let me tell you, in Germany they are very common. In my home town, there are at least 30-40, in larger cities like Hamburg, there are entire trails consisting of nothing but these caches. They are not climbable - usually they are hung high up on trees that don't allow climbing.
It's interesting to me that you both arrive at different conclusions, what the correct rating (D or T) should be - that is precisely the problem. This is not a solution, everyone rates this type of cache differently, even though they are mostly the same, and the reviewers don't enforce a consistent standard.
They have been around for years, and they are not going anywhere - just give me a consistent way to filter them. Adding an attribute won't hurt you, if you don't encounter these caches, that's fine for you.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
The title is self-explanatory. These types of caches where you have to bring a long pole or fishing rod to get them out of a tree have become extremely common. However, they are a type of cache that requires a very specific type of equipment that can not be easily distinguished from other caches, as there's no uniform guideline as to what D/T rating they should be. Some owners interpret them as D5 ("You have to bring a specialised tool"), others as T5 ("They are high up") and others just rate them whatever, since they judge the method of hiding as just an inconvenience ("I always have my fishing pole in my car anyways").
I don't want to go into the pros and cons of these types of caches, the problem is that there is no reliable way of filtering them when planning a cache tour. Sure, many are tagged with the "Special tool required" attribute, but this is unspecific. There are other caches, i.e. requiring a UV-light, that also have this tag. While can consistently carry a UV-light with me when caching, carrying a fishing pole is not possible for every caching trip. Caches requiring a UV-light are a lot less common, yet they already have their own attribute. Many other already existing attributes are even more specific.
This should not be too hard to do, as other attributes have already been released in recent times.
EDIT: When saying fishing pole, I was translating the german word "Angelcache". Generally, these types of caches are found using a rigid telescopic pole with a fixed hook at the end, not an actual fishing rod. I would also like to highlight the excellent suggestion by NiraD for a potential implementation of the attribute:
Quote
Pole required.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
-
Hi, I have got a problem with the souvenir system.
Although I found several Caches on August 20th, I didn´t discover the International Geocaching Day souvenir.
Can someone help me?
Greetings
Max 1996
.png)
.png)
[Feature Request] Introduce an Attribute for Biltema / Fishing Rod Caches
in Website
Posted
Earlier you said that the existence of specific attributes is not an argument for creating more - well I think by the same metric you can't claim that creating one is unfeasible because we could also justify creating others, unless you are actually invoking a slippery slope - one that results in more features and QoL for the users of this website. I am not advocating for any of the examples you listed, although I think they are sensible and definitely more useful than some of the existing ones.
Your point about the mess of the search function is justified. (Also why is the list not in alphabetical order?) I think we should differentiate between two types of attributes: those that are purely informative in the cache description (i.e. Telephone nearby) and those that one would actively want to search for, i.e. Wheelchair accessible, Night cache. The first category could easily be hidden from the search options, greatly relieving your problem.
However, these are still separate issues - a general tedious UI related to using attributes is not a good argument against the specific issue I have outlined in my post and the need for a pole required attribute. If you want to advocate for an overhaul of the search page, then I'm all for it and will happily support you.