Jump to content

Change Of Policy On Terrain One Caches?


dak's Emu Mob
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

G'day,

 

Has there been a change in policy on terrain one caches? Or does it only apply to us here in Oz?

 

Lately, the Australian approver has been "requesting" that placers use the optional cache attribute to indicate that a terrain one cache is wheelchair accessible. If the cacher doesn't want to use these icons (I don't), then the only option seems to be to increase the terrain rating to 1.5 or greater. The cache is not approved until one of these conditions is met.

 

Is this happening in the US too? Are these cache attribute icons now mandatory? (By the way, I don't like them, because they screw up the formatting of the 'print friendly (no logs)' version of the cache page.)

 

Cheers,

 

dak

Link to comment

I don't understand your objection. I looked at two caches, one with attributes and one without. I don't see a significant difference except that the map is moved a bit to the left to make room for the attributes. Am I missing something?

 

BTW, I still don't get why gc.com can't seem to change the color of the yellow difficulty stars. Anyone out there at gc.com at all interested in taking this up? Is there a more correct way to make this a request?

Edited by tossedsalad
Link to comment

I don't think the reviewers are supposed to be forcing you to use attributes.

 

As noted, terrain 1 caches are supposed to be wheelchair accessable. I personally don't use attributes. Got used to NOT having them, so I mostly ignore them... maybe in about a year or two I'll get to understans all 50 or whatever the symbols and add them to my own caches, till then probably not.

 

I've not noticed these formating problems you describe. Can you provide a link to one that gets screwed up??

Link to comment

Personally, I think the reviewer is on to something good. For quite a while, people have been wanting to be able to search by the attributes, but not everyone uses them. By forcing you to use the wheelchair attribute for a '1' cache, not only is it taking a step in a good direction towards this search function actually being a very worthwile tool, it also forces you to evaluate whether or not your cache is TRULY a level 1 cache that is indeed wheelchair accessible.

Link to comment

I know reviewers in the US are often verifying that terrain 1 caches are handicap accessible. I've yet to hear of one however forcing people to use the wheelchair accessible icon and holding up caches over this issue.

 

BTW, I still don't get why gc.com can't seem to change the color of the yellow difficulty stars. Anyone out there at gc.com at all interested in taking this up? Is there a more correct way to make this a request?

 

Yes, take it to the Geocaching.com Website forum.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Hey Dak, you got bitten by this too.

 

I hid a 1/1 recently. It IS wheelchair accessible. I did NOT initially put that attribute on because while it CAN be done by someone in a chair, I wouldn't RECOMMEND it.

 

Basically I use the attributes as ADDITIONAL information. I don't put attributes on unless I think they are the MOST applicable. ie. Even though I hide most of my caches in the western suburbs of Melbourne where there are plenty of venomous tiger snakes, I don't put the snakes attributes on unless I think there is a real chance of you running into one.

 

In the same way I don't add the wheelchair accessible attribute to a 1/1 cache. If it's a 1/1 then you should know you can access it.

 

So to avoid this problem in future I'll likely go with 1/1.5

I would prefer that the reviews did not mandate that attributes are used, there are enough rules already.

Link to comment
G'day,

 

Has there been a change in policy on terrain one caches? Or does it only apply to us here in Oz?

 

Lately, the Australian approver has been "requesting" that placers use the optional cache attribute to indicate that a terrain one cache is wheelchair accessible. If the cacher doesn't want to use these icons (I don't), then the only option seems to be to increase the terrain rating to 1.5 or greater. The cache is not approved until one of these conditions is met.

 

Is this happening in the US too? Are these cache attribute icons now mandatory? (By the way, I don't like them, because they screw up the formatting of the 'print friendly (no logs)' version of the cache page.)

 

Cheers,

 

dak

Your best answer will come from writing Approvers@geocaching.com with the information from your thread.

Link to comment

At some point in the near future you will be able to search by attribute so it is wise to use them on your cache page. It is not a requirement however.

 

If a terrain 1 cache is submitted, I will usually send the hider an email just before listing it to verify if it is wheelchair accessible but have not held any back waiting for that verification.

Link to comment

Two things.

 

This site doesn't define wheelchair accessibility AFAIK. How do you know your cache fits the definition of wheelchair accessible? I'm only taking a stab at accessibility when I rate a cache with 1 star.

 

Second, I know of folks in wheelchairs who can access much greater than 1 star caches. Are we going to confuse people by making all wheelchair accessible caches a 1 star?

 

Remember, 1 star means a cache is wheelchair accessible, but not necessarily a wheelchair accessible cache is a 1 star.

 

The OP sounds like yet another classic case of a reviewer not working from the same playbook as everyone else.

Link to comment

As Quiggle already pointed out, someday in the future we may be able to filter our searches by attribute. I don't see the objection to using them. :P Seems like it would be easier to use them as you submit a new cache, than to go back and add them to all of your caches when that day come. <_<

 

I'll agree with CR :D that there is no one accepted definition of accessible in the caching world, and I certalnly wouldn't use TAR as my yardstick. :o I would use the 1* rating to indicate that it is accessible to the majority of cachers who use a wheelchair. I would use it when the paths are paved, or very hard pack surfaces, there is little or no grade, there are curb cuts, and the cache can be reached while still comfortably seated. :D I'm sure there are some cachers using wheelchairs who can get to many more caches than that, but I wouldn't base my rating on them.

Link to comment

At the end of our cache-hunting day last week, we decided to go for one last easy one rated 1/1.

 

We thought we could drive to it . . . but it turned out the "road" was impassable by our two-wheel drive vehicle. So we walked more than .12 of a mile. :D

 

Previous searchers (two experienced cachers) took more than an hour of searching to finally decide to call it a DNF. The two of us didn't take that much time to call it a DNF. :D

 

The cache has only been found once . . . :D

 

I think it would be good if reviewers questioned the ratings a bit . . . especially the one about wheelchair accessibility.

 

I like the attributes . . . now that I know how to add them to my cache pages. :D

Link to comment

G'day All,

 

Thanks to all who have responded to this topic. I apologise for not responding earlier. I must have forgotten to check the "Enable email notification of replies" box, so I was unaware that people had responded.

 

Unlike US cache pages, there is no map displayed on the normal cache pages over here in Oz. However, when you view the 'print friendly' page, a map is displayed. This results in the following across the page:

 

Coordinates etc. -> map -> text version of attributes (on top of) TB info.

 

Look at GCR3N3 for an example of an Australian cache page.

 

Depending on how wide your screen is, it probably looks OK. However, when you print the page the coordinate information was squashed, with line breaks added to make the whole lot fit into the page width. It looks ugly, and makes the coords harder to read. It's not a big deal, just an annoyance. You could argue that it is the map that is causing the problem, because when a page doesn't include the map, the problem disappears.

 

Also, it seems that something might have changed. When I posted the original note, I thought that the text version of the attributes was printed to the right of the TB info, not above it. My memory might be faulty, if nothing has changed, but I seem to remember that this really exacerbated the problem.

 

Anyhow, my original question related to the approver requiring the use of attributes. As CO Admin suggested, I'll take it up with Approvers@geocaching.com.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Cheers,

 

dak

Link to comment

There are times when we see an obvious terrain level to low and will send the note below after the cache is listed. This has nothing to with the attribute icons. Right now you can do a search by terrain but not by attribute. Have never had a complainant about asking this

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

 

 

Greeting from Geocaching.com

 

We just looked at your new cache, but the Terrain level may need to be changed to a higher setting. If a person in a wheelchair can not retrieve the cache container while sitting you will need to adjust the level to ay least a 1.5

 

Thank you for playing the sport

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

Reply to: MaxCacher@aol.com

Please send the name of the cache and the GC# with your reply

Link to comment

While recovering from a leg injury, I was looking for easy terrain caches. I tried some "1"'s that had no path and overgrowth and some that required crossing deep ditches. I wished the reviewer had questioned the terrain.

I questioned one hider about his terrain rating and his reply for one of his caches was basically: It's rated "1", but don't try it because it not really a "1".

Other hiders may just be making an honest mistake when they mis-rate the terrain.

Link to comment

well my 2 cents is this--attributes should be used if this site asks that we do this and provides these in order to help people out. The owners have spent a lot of money on this site and a lot of us use it for free. i am glad it exists. When i start hiding cache's soon i deffinetly will use attributes. thanks to the reviewers out their who do care and give their time to assure rules are followed. I fish I hunt fortunatly rules exist for safety and to help create enjoyment. welp there goes the rebelious life huh.....

fishnhunt

Link to comment

I think I disagree.

I can see where a church parking lot, would be a 1/1, but because of a deeper trench down the middle to let water run off, would not be wheelchair accessible, or maybe parking bumpers. You would not want someone in a wheelchair going to this location to fetch a cache, because it is a 1/1 and then finding out it was not available to them because of a series of parking bumpers, which an ambulatory person could walk over and not think about it.

So a 1/1 may be wheelchair accessible, but it also may not. Why rate an open parking lot as described 1.5/1 for walking cachers. ?

 

"An elephant may have fleas, but a flea cannot have elephants"

 

A 1/1 may be wheelchair accessibile, but it does not have to be, therefore a wheelchair accessibile is a 1/1, but a 1/1 is not "automatically" wheelchair accessibile.

 

Besides, if you are not wheelchair bound, how would you know ?

 

Just my .02 cents

Link to comment

By wheelchair accessible, I know it is meant that a person in a wheelchair should be able to maneuver their chair to the cache and not have to cross stumps or boulders. However, what does "wheelchair accessible" mean when it comes to retrieving the cache? Does the cache have to be accessible from a seated position, say 3ft off the ground? Or could the cache be 5ft off the ground, which would be accessible if the cacher is able to stand up?

 

Edit: Huskerrich beat me by only a minute, thus the semi-redundant post.

Edited by geognerd
Link to comment
I  think I disagree.

I can see where a church parking lot, would be a 1/1, but because of a deeper trench down the middle to let water run off, would not be wheelchair accessible, or maybe parking bumpers. You would not want someone in a wheelchair going to this location to fetch a cache, because it is a 1/1 and then finding out it was not available to them because of a series of parking bumpers, which an ambulatory person could walk over and not think about it.

So a 1/1 may be wheelchair accessible, but it also may not. Why rate an open parking lot as described 1.5/1 for walking cachers. ?

 

"An elephant may have fleas, but a flea cannot have elephants"

 

A 1/1 may be wheelchair accessibile, but it does not have to be, therefore a wheelchair accessibile is a 1/1, but a 1/1 is not "automatically" wheelchair accessibile.

 

  Besides, if you are not wheelchair bound, how would you know ?

 

Just my .02 cents

Disagree all you want, but the rating system linked to from the submission form says:

Terrain rating: 1 * Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

Now as I posted earlier in this thread, there are different levels of ability among those individuals with a disability. But why wouldn't you be willing to rate your cache a 1.5* terrain if you are pretty sure it would be a hassle for the average individual who is diabled or uses a wheelchair? Are you that hung up on owning a 1/1 cache? :P

 

And to try and answer the OP's question-I'm not aware of any US reviewers requiring the use of the attributes, but they have been suggested to me in the past.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...