Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ClayJar

  1. So here is a suggestion. Someone start a feedback topic for a power trail attribute.[...] We can all go vote on it. When the icon becomes available the owners get to change the attributes again. Those that want the trail filter for the attribute, those that don't want the can filter to exclude the attribute. Both camps are happy. All we need is an appropriate attribute.


    Someone did that very thing, as mentioned earlier in this very thread. It's already there, and it has been for a while, but it looks like it could use more votes.


    Feedback forum: "Define an attribute or devise a way to filter power trails" http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050853-define-an-attribute-or-devise-a-way-to-filter-powe

  2. We added the scuba attribute at the suggestion of people in this forum to help them filter out the trail. Now that we have, people don't like that either. So what works?

    There are several suggestions of things that may work. They may not be as effective as some who don't care for power trails would like them to be, but they are what you have to work with. Consider the following quote:


    [...]owners of power trails far from water took to using an unlikely attribute, scuba. Use of this attribute causes some additional work for the other relatively few scuba cachers out there, but it satisfies the needs of the greater amount of cachers wishing to identify power trails

    Now what you have to ask yourself is this: Is it the right thing to render an attribute unusable for the group of cachers for whom is was expressly created just because their group is smaller? Should you poison the admittedly small well of one group so that a larger group has a somewhat more convenient time?


    You have hidden caches; so whether they're any particular cacher's preferred variety, you have shown initiative in building the community of geocaching. You have also gone out of your way to be respectable even to geocachers who actively dislike your variety of caching. I cannot make your decision for you, and I can truly say I regret that there is currently no attribute or other simple solution that can accommodate those who want to filter out your caches. Is their dislike sufficient to justify breaking the game for the few of us scubacachers as are out there, or will you decide that convenience for the many is not sufficient to sacrifice the few?


    As one of the few, I appreciate your consideration.

  3. You have some very valid points. I did not realize that the high desert was a hot bed of scuba caches. :ph34r:
    Hehe, but seriously, isn't that rather the *point*?


    If I run a PQ centered on my home coordinates for all scubacaches within 500 miles, I get 47 caches. Some of them are jokes or lies, but at least I can page through 47 caches to find the ones that are actually scubacaches.


    Do a Pocket Query for all scubacaches with 500 miles of N 36° 08.000' W 114° 25.000', which is in the middle of Lake Mead. In the list of results, number five, at 88.5 miles northeast, is GCXX3N: Just Plane Diving. The next four hundred and ninety-five listings are all from the two power trails mentioned here.


    Now here's the kicker: The two power cache runs that are out there in the high desert are overflowing the Pocket Queries of *everywhere* with *500 miles*. That means that the *ENTIRE* California coast from San Diego through Monterrey Bay past San Francisco and all the way up to about Shelter Cove is being DOSed. When you're looking for scubacaches, you don't just look at your block or your town or your county or even your state. There are far too few. You look as wide as you can. When you do that where I am (at least, when you do it today), you get a meaningful result. When you try it in Lake Mead (where there is actual scubacaching going on), you get a garbage result.


    I know there was no malevolence involved, and I certainly empathize with your situation, but you're unintentionally nuking our pool, and I'm just trying to explain the damage so that you can do what's honorable and not unintentionally hurt other cachers because of an oversight. (I completely understand not thinking the scubacaching attribute is important in the desert, but I'd certainly hope that now that the scope of the actual impact is understood, this can be made better.)

  4. This topic only just came to my attention thanks to some friends of mine, but as a scuba instructor who is trying hard to get more scubacaches placed and visited, I find it rather disheartening to find out that the "Scuba Gear Required" attribute is being used so, um, "creatively". Having an attribute or the like for power trails seems like it would likely be a very decent idea, but there are so few actual scubacaches out there, misusing our attribute makes it exceedingly difficult for the few of us out there to find the quite rare scubacaches we enjoy.


    I know it probably seemed that Scuba isn't a very important attribute, but it is indeed to those few of us trying to better our little exotic corner of the game. I know that there isn't an attribute for your part of geocaching (yet), but as good and honorable geocachers, would you please consider a sincere request to remove our scuba attribute from the non-scuba caches?


    (I'm a scubacacher and a scuba instructor down in Louisiana. If you were closer to me, I'd gladly work out some introductory scubacaching experience. I'm always looking out for people interested in our wet little corner of geocaching. Alas, it's a bit far of a drive for me on a weekend.)

  5. I think it would be a great idea to start a simple chat room for the sight, It would give people a great chance to talk and share ideas more directly. :rolleyes: i also want to see what people think of the idea.

    I'd say they're quite in favor of the idea, considering we've had the chat running for 382 weeks straight so far. ;)


    Clicking the link from the forum list or going to http://gcchat.clayjar.com/ will pull it right up (via a nice little java applet), or you can use whatever software you'd like. Every Monday night from 8:30-10:00pm Central (US) time is the weekly "official" chat (where there will *always* be people there), but people are there or lurking pretty much all the time.


    (And speaking of lurking, let me get back to it. :anicute:)

  6. Monday, January 21, 2002, at 8:30pm Central Standard Time, the greeting was spoken and the very first weekly official geocaching chat.


    Tonight, Monday, January 21, 2008, beginning at 8:30pm Central Standard Time (Tuesday morning at 02:30 UTC), we convene the 314th consecutive weekly official geocaching chat and celebrate six uninterrupted years.


    Join us by going to http://gcchat.clayjar.com/ or by connecting to irc.slashnet.org with your favorite IRC client and joining #Geocache.


    Drop by before 10pm CST to make yourself known on this 6th chativersary, number 100*pi. :unsure:

  7. A long, long time ago, right around here somewhere, somebody asked whether we could have a live chat. The call went out for a volunteer, and after everyone else took a giant stride backward, I was called upon to put it together. :D On Monday, January 21st, 2002, at 8:30pm Central Standard Time, the very first "weekly official geocaching chat" was called to order (hehe, more or less).


    Yesterday, we had the 299th weekly chat, and in those 299 sessions (and the 166.5 hours per week between them), we have had the great pleasure of chatting with many geocachers from all walks of life and almost all continents -- I don't believe we've had anyone on from McMurdo or South Pole Station, but hey, nobody's perfect. We've also had the occasional loon, of course, but those have been very few and far between (although in the case of TJWilson, even the one is enough to have forged a permanent memory on any who were around for his unbelievably spectacular display of unbridled idiocy... but that's another story).


    So, next week is the three hundredth weekly official geocaching chat, and we'd like to openly invite *everyone* to join us (except TJWilson, who can call in if he'd like, but who is still banned from the chat pending the heat-death of the universe :laughing:). If you've never joined in, come by for the sight. If you used to chat, drop in for a visit, and if you know someone who used to chat, invite them to come back, even if just for this one special occasion.


    The chat will be, as always, Monday night at 8:30pm CDT (UTC: 1:30am Tuesday morning), and you can get there through the link in the forums list, but going directly to the java chat applet, or by connecting to irc.slashnet.org and joining #Geocache (if you have any idea what that meant, that is -- otherwise, use the easy links :laughing:). It usually runs about an hour and a half, with many people hanging out before and after the "official" time.


    Anyway, we'd love to see you there this Monday to celebrate 300 consecutive weeks of the chat, so drop by Monday night if you can.


    How to Access the Chat:

    Chat #300, Monday, October 15, 2007, 8:30pm - 10pm CDT

  8. One little note:


    If you're going to include a logbook, I *highly* recommend using a DuraRite notepad, *NOT* just a plain or even "Rite in the Rain" notebook. The DuraRite ones (by the same company) are completely synthetic paper and do not degrade when used underwater (or left there a long time).


    Shipping's a killer for small orders, but GearMechant.com had great prices on them when I bought a few to use with our dive team.

  9. Quoting in full my post from the other site:

    Through the course of this thread and the one on Geocaching.com, I made claims that I didn't ask for any bans or beg mods to ride to my rescue. While the letter of those statements may have been true in the most hair-splitting technical terms, the spirit of those statements was, in fact, a lie.


    Sure, I did not knowingly ask for any bans, but I did click the report link which began the series of events leading to them. Without my actions, there would not have been the "interference" the blame for which I allowed to be placed on the Groundspeak mods. To intentionally cause people to believe that I was not involved and that the mods were the root was inexcusable.


    History is littered with people who honestly believed their cause was just and their actions to that end were acceptable. Those people are often the most egregious violators of others human rights. I had always looked upon them as the scourge of humanity and believed that there was no way I could ever fall into that trap, and now, here I find myself. While I have not commited any atrocities as obvious as killing and maiming large numbers of people, I have perhaps permanently damaged friendships that I valued far above anything I may have gained.


    I can only pray that someday they will find it in their hearts to forgive my blindness and stupidity, and perhaps one day be able to once again call me friend, but I'm afraid that day is likely a very long and painful way off.


    People of this thread, I ask you to please turn your attention from the mods and put the blame on whom it truly belongs. It is *my* fault that there were bans, and if anyone deserves to be mocked and reviled, it is I. Certainly, I am a much more deserving target of derision than the mods, who did nothing that I did not precipitate both with my opening the thread and then reporting a post.

  10. Several formerly dissenting cachers have concurred with the plan, so I have put it in place. There are no longer any negative lists. Instead, there is a purely informative list which simply goes with the attribute to give scubacachers a link to the second list, which includes all "verified" scubacaches (and can be run as a PQ, etc).


    Anyway, there you have it.

  11. You have written too much information. I think all you need to add if you must add a bookmark is what is above. That is my thought. This way it doesn't say anything more. Short and sweet is the best policy.
    The problem I'd have with abbreviating it that much is that it doesn't tell scubacachers why they need to use the list. If you believe it's poorly written, I'm certainly not tied to that exact language, but there needs to be something to tell the scubacachers reading it what's going on.


    (And what's going on is simply that there are all sorts of amazingly designed caches out there, but that fantastic creativity means that the atttribute is not as it appears. The description says absolutely nothing against that (and in fact, it applauds the creativity), but it has to explain at least briefly why scubacachers should be using the list and *not* using the attribute in their searching.)

  12. I'm waiting for comment in some other involved forums, but for this thread's information, I'm cross-posting this here (slightly edited to make sense outside that other thread).

    How about this:
    • *Every* cache with the scuba gear required attribute is included in a bookmark list titled "Scubacachers: Read This First!"
    • All "verified" scubacaches are also listed in a bookmark list of divable scubacaches.
    • The main bookmark list includes a description that explains that not all caches with the attribute are scubacaches, but that there is another list which just includes the "verified" ones, along with a link to the "verified" list.
    • The "verified" list includes a description that also includes instructions on how to use the list to make a scubacaching pocket query.

    This would leave a few outstanding issues.

    1. I would have to maintain it manually.
    2. Liars' caches would be in the main list but not the true list.
    3. It wouldn't work allow PQ users the flexibility of using all the features of "normal" PQ searches, as those options are not available for bookmark list PQs.

    Obviously, if I'm really as benevolent as I claim, this is easier than what I've been doing, so issue 1 is basically a moot point.


    I don't really see any way around issue 2, but if it's considered a problem, I'm open to brainstorming some potential solutions.


    As for issue 3, we're scubacachers! We're used to having to go out of our way to combine our two hobbies. While it may be less than ideal to have to do all the fun PQ stuff client-side, it's hardly too much to ask us to contribute to a solution, so I can accept it.


    So, what do you think? Would it be an acceptable solution to have a generic "readme" for scubacachers on all scuba gear required caches (and even the 14 without the attribute), with an additional bookmark list *only* on the "verified" scubacaches? Feel free to reply with your version of this concept if you think we might be on the right track, and I'd be more than happy to work out the details. Once we reach a mutually acceptable solution, I can redo the bookmark list(s).


    For the bookmark list to include all scubacaches and caches with the attribute, how about the following:

    Scubacachers: Read This First!


    Welcome scubacachers and friends.


    Obviously, you're interested in scubacaching. Geocaching.com has a scuba attribute that you have probably seen, but it can be used in many different ways. Sometimes a cache floods and the hider temporarily assigns it. Other times, it may be used as part of a creative cache description such as a joke or "liar's" cache. And then there are caches which were designed to be done in scuba. Of all the varied uses of the attribute, chances are that as a scubacacher, you're looking for that last group.


    Well, you're in luck! To help you in your scubacaching quest, we have a _bookmark_list_ for you that includes only caches that we've checked and verified (as best we can) to be caches actually intended to be done with scuba. Just _click_here_to_go_to_that_list._

    So, what do the people around here think about it?
  13. How does ClayJar know that there aren't caches out there that require diving gear and aren't on his list if they don't have attributes with the little guy who has a tank on. Has he bookmarked those caches?
    Actually, there are currently 14 caches I know about through scubacacher word of mouth, keyword searches, and searching by the coordinates of dive sites with which I'm familiar. They are indeed on a separate list, and they are listed amongst the true scubacaches on my scubacaching page.


    Scubacaches which do not have the attribute are harder to find, but that is completely irrelevant to the concept of caches misapplying the attribute. Obviously, the fact that a hider doesn't apply the attribute has no bearing on other hiders misapplying it. Are some people so twisted to think that one person not dropping money in the Salvation Army kettle around Christmas is justification to throw their trash into it? (Actually, if it were online, I bet there'd be jerks who *would* think that way, and that certainly doesn't brighten my day.)



    (By the way, if, someday, the attributes are listed in the PQs, as I had been led to believe was supposed to have been the case way back when, I'll be very happy.)

  14. Of course, it takes about 30 seconds to read the cache page, check the map for water at the cache site, AND email the owner to double check the attribute. If I was going to plan a whole day and journey around a cache or two, I would CERTAINLY confirm the attributes, scuba or any other. Common Sense should prevail, not attribute nazis
    Okay, let's say it does take 30 seconds for a scubacacher to do all you say. So, that's 30 seconds and one email per cache per scubacacher. Now, multiply that 30 seconds and one email by the number of non-scubacaches the scubacacher will have to look at while trying to find a scubacache. Are you starting to see the point you've completely missed here?


    It's not a case of "I'm going to look for this cache, but do I need my scuba gear?" It's a case of, "Bloody heck! Aren't *ANY* of these blasted things *really* scubacaches?!?" (That's a paraphrase of what I myself was thinking when I spent an entire evening on my slow link trying to find a single real scubacache to find.)


    Scubacaching isn't something you do just because a nearby cache requires scuba gear. Scubacaching is something you do because you want to use your scuba gear to go caching! (I didn't think this was a very difficult concept, but the fact I am repeating myself like a broken record seems to indicate that I was apparently very wrong somehow.)

  15. I really could care less about the attributes. I don't think I have ever decided to do or not do a cache because of an attribute. I don't think I ever will.
    Ah, but you are not a scubacacher.


    I think a huge majority of geocachers have never used an attribute as their defining reason for finding a geocache.
    Ah, but the vast majority of cachers are not scubacachers. Might I also add that the vast majority of caches are not scubacaches? That's entirely the point -- the whole concept here is to allow the tiny minority of cachers who are scubacachers to find the tiny minority of caches which are scubacaches.


    Would I be remiss to say that it logically follows that if you, as a non-scubacacher, are representative of non-scubacachers, then by your own words it should be no big deal for non-scubacaching hiders to refrain from using one irrelevant attribute?

  16. Okay, sbell111, twice you've called me snarky, but I have trouble seeing that. Do you mean snarky as in "rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide" or snarky as in "irritable or short-tempered; irascible"?


    I don't see how I was rudely sarcastic, as I attempted to convey something that is a significant burden to me in an attempt to find a less burdensome solution. Although the root cause is attribute misuse, the problem was technical.


    As for being irascible, I'll admit I used the "mad" smiley in a parenthetical at the end, but I also used the big grin smiley earlier. I can ask a mod to edit the former out if it causes such grief; I'd put it there just because a "frustrated at an intractable situation" smiley has apparently never been created. I have a feeling that you could find a much more "irritable or short-tempered" poster on this thread without too much effort.


    Anyway, please explain where you're finding the snarkiness so I can be more careful in the future. It's been quite a while since I was driven off the forums by reading too many flamers, lamers, and trolls; I certainly don't want to do anything that will have the level-headed members of the forums thinking I'm one of the jerks.

  17. Given that it is that much work, why not click on a map link to verify the presence of water?


    This just seams like a ton of angst over a tiny issue.

    The issue is not whether any given cache requires scuba gear. You are correct in your assumption that it's usually trivial for me to pull up the Google Maps link on a single cache to see that the attribute cannot apply. Rather, the issue is that scubacachers are actually searching via the attribute to try to *find* the few scubacaches out there to go after. Is it really too much to ask for hiders not to require scubacachers to slog through pages of dry caches, checking each one for the presence of water, in order to finally find one that they can actually dive? (Frankly, it's not only time consuming, but it's also quite frustrating.)...
    On the other hand, if we look at your level of work now compared to a few years ago when you were practically begging for the attribute, we would come to the conclusion that the extra work of checking a map on a relatively few cache pages is not that big of a deal.



    Congratulations, you have me completely at a loss for words.


    (Oh, except, perhaps, to note that your logic completely fails to support item two of the creed on your profile. It's hardly helping to say life was utter crap for scubacachers before, so it shouldn't bother them that life is only a pain now. :wub:)

  18. Given that it is that much work, why not click on a map link to verify the presence of water?


    This just seams like a ton of angst over a tiny issue.

    The issue is not whether any given cache requires scuba gear. You are correct in your assumption that it's usually trivial for me to pull up the Google Maps link on a single cache to see that the attribute cannot apply. Rather, the issue is that scubacachers are actually searching via the attribute to try to *find* the few scubacaches out there to go after. Is it really too much to ask for hiders not to require scubacachers to slog through pages of dry caches, checking each one for the presence of water, in order to finally find one that they can actually dive? (Frankly, it's not only time consuming, but it's also quite frustrating.)


    I doubt anyone does searches for, say, caches with "drinking water nearby". That's just a nicely informative attribute. Conversely, people *are* trying to use the "requires scuba gear" attribute to find scubacaches. Do you not understand this distinction, or do you disagree with it? If the former, I'll try to elucidate; if the latter, I suppose there would be no point.

  19. By the way, I'd like to thank the hiders who updated their caches this week to remove the "requires scuba gear" attribute from their non-scubacaches. I was quite happy to get to remove *13* caches from the list.


    I also edited the bookmark list title to thank them as well. Maybe it'll help some of the other hiders to do the polite thing. :rolleyes:

  20. It's been a while since I've been wet and I'll admit that readiness and portability was likely never part of the OP's issue, but isn't most of that stuff bagged and ready to go? Aren't you just left with making sure that you have air and that your regulator is in proper working order? The latter something that you do just before making the dive, so it wouldn't be an issue if there was no water.
    I had to search through pages and pages of falsely tagged caches to find a scubacache when I wanted to dive one. I had to drive over 750 miles to get to the nearest one. Obviously, there was a lot more care to be taken in checking and packing gear than if it were just another cache.


    Scubacachers have to spend significant effort planning and executing their scubacache hunts. People polluting the "requires scuba gear" attribute space only make it that much more trouble, and for what? So Joe Cacher can have a pretty little icon on their page? If Joe wants a pretty little icon, I'd be happy to *PAY* someone to design a *really* nice one.


    In fact, I'll pay my own money to have two new icons created, one for "I like pretty icons!" (perhaps a pink My Little Pony?) and second for "This cache is a lie, so laugh!" I'll also buy Jeremy, hydee, or whomever a steak dinner (be reasonable), a pair of earplugs (each), and a Hallmark condolence card (for the grief they may suffer), and all they need to do is declare that the "scuba gear required" cache attribute *means* *something*.


    I'm all for people having fun, enjoying themselves, and being creative in cache hides and descriptions. What I'm not content with is for people to make life harder for no good reason at all.

  21. No, but I might suggest that an occasional wrong attribute is not an emergency.
    I don't recall anyone saying it was an emergency.


    A wet diaper isn't going to kill a kid, but there's no reason to let him sit there in it, eh? Both that and the misuse of the scuba attribute are things I think would be better off changed. :rolleyes:

  22. How much time did you put into 'pollute'? :P

    Not much at all. I'm somewhat familiar with the word:
    To make less suitable for an activity, especially by the introduction of unwanted factors: The stadium lights polluted the sky around the observatory.
    The labelling of non-scubacaches as "requires scuba gear" makes the attribute less suitable for the use for which it was intended, and it does so "by the introduction of unwanted factors", even.


    You're not going to tell me next that scubacachers want to find irrelevant dryland caches when they search via the attribute, are you? :rolleyes:

  • Create New...