Attribute Request

[+fishingdude720]

how about having an attribute if the area gets flooded alot? On one of my caches the area can be completely underwater or bone dry. Does anyone else like this idea.

[+Ambrosia]

I have a couple caches like that.

 

I've used the wading attribute for a couple caches that may have water at times.

 

 

'May require wading'

 

 

'May require swimming'

Edited January 22, 2006 by Ambrosia

[+fishingdude720]

yeah but I thought that that may scare some people off with the swimming part. I used the wading one for a cache at the beach because only at low tide you can get to the cache. I was just thinking of one in case a stream overflows.

[+Ambrosia]

Well, if the stream overflows, there are only 3 options: They will have to wade, swim, or not do the cache.

 

So I think that the attributes work for this case. You can explain the reasons in your cache log, and it's their choice if they want to do it.

 

The reality is that no matter what, these sorts of caches don't get as many visitors. My two that have this issue do not. But boy, I enjoy the cache logs of the people that do go to them! I believe that people have a more memorable experience, and the people who choose not to do them are missing out.

[+sbell111]

I kinda like the 'may be flooded' idea.

 

I have two caches that are in areas that flood occasionally. One of which would be dicy if the water is two high. I could disable them, but generally, the water is never high for more than a day or so. By the time I disabled them, it would be almost time to reactivate.

Edited January 23, 2006 by sbell111

[+fishingdude720]

That is the problem with mine. You cannot get to the cache if it is flooded because the area become rapids. The last time it flooded the area looked like the amazon and would become impassible. I just thought it would be easier to include an attribute.

 

Edit: spelling

Edited January 23, 2006 by fishingdude720

[ocarina_21]

This would be a good idea, even though the place I am considering that has this capability is sometimes flooded, it's usually a little bit, but other times, it would have been 8 feet under. I suppose you never know.

[+Moose Mob]

How about something that refers to "This spot is prone to flooding" which would indicate that it's below the high water mark or otherwise has evidence that this area can easily fill with water and causing the cache to be submerged part time?

[+fishingdude720]

How about something that refers to "This spot is prone to flooding" which would indicate that it's below the high water mark or otherwise has evidence that this area can easily fill with water and causing the cache to be submerged part time?

Good idea! Anyone have an idea on what it can look like.

[+fishingdude720]

how about this:

 

<IMG SRC="attribute_flood" WIDTH="41" HEIGHT="41" BORDER="0" </IMG>

Edited January 24, 2006 by fishingdude720

[+Ed & Julie]

Edited January 24, 2006 by The Badge & the Butterfly

[CoyoteRed]

Personally I'm starting to question the usefulness of attributes.

 

Does anyone really filter on attributes? I'm sure there is the occasional "Dog Friendly" or "Kid Friendly" filter, but who filters on "May Require Wading" or "Ticks!"?

[+StarBrand]

If such an attribute were added - should ALL caches in New Orleans be attributed as such???

 

(sarcasm)

[+sbell111]

... but who filters on "May Require Wading" or "Ticks!"?

A local cacher got bitten by a tick last year and became quite ill. I bet he now filters out 'Ticks'.

Edited January 24, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Expounding on my last post to make it more 'on topic':

 

If your area has recently received heavy rains, it might be really helpful to sort out the caches that may be flooded. In the past, I've hiked to a cache only to be foiled by a flooded GZ, if I had known that the area might be flooded, I'd have saved that cache for a drier day.

[+fishingdude720]

I like this one. Mine pretty much looked the same just it did not work.

 

I've hiked to a cache only to be foiled by a flooded GZ, if I had known that the area might be flooded, I'd have saved that cache for a drier day

 

That is what I am trying to point out. The area is usually dry but when it rains it becomes a major river because the area is very low. If I were to see I woulkd wait a couple days after it rained.

 

Does anyone really filter on attributes? I'm sure there is the occasional "Dog Friendly" or "Kid Friendly" filter, but who filters on "May Require Wading" or "Ticks!"?

 

I always do.

[+fishingdude720]

Something like this maybe?

[+fishingdude720]

Or this.

[+fishingdude720]

[+sbell111]

[+Allen_L]

... but who filters on "May Require Wading" or "Ticks!"?

A local cacher got bitten by a tick last year and became quite ill. I bet he now filters out 'Ticks'.

Due to the way attribute filtering for PQ's is set up you can have a PQ show geocaches with the tick attribute set but you can't filter for the geocaches that don't have it set.

 

The same effect would work on "might flood" attribute you could find the geocaches that might flood, but couldn't filter them out.

Edited January 24, 2006 by AllenLacy

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

How about:

 

 

"Flooding Possible"

[+Elde]

Personally I'm starting to question the usefulness of attributes.

 

Does anyone really filter on attributes?  I'm sure there is the occasional "Dog Friendly" or "Kid Friendly" filter, but who filters on "May Require Wading" or "Ticks!"?

Given the ongoing flood of attribute requests - I'm starting to think people want to be able to filter, download, and go.... Without the bothersome bit of actually reading the cache page.

[CoyoteRed]

Personally I'm starting to question the usefulness of attributes.

 

Does anyone really filter on attributes?  I'm sure there is the occasional "Dog Friendly" or "Kid Friendly" filter, but who filters on "May Require Wading" or "Ticks!"?

Given the ongoing flood of attribute requests - I'm starting to think people want to be able to filter, download, and go.... Without the bothersome bit of actually reading the cache page.

Granted.

 

However, the very fact the requests are coming in may indicate static attributes might not have been the best solution. I mentioned "tags" a while back and it went over like a lead balloon. Tags would be like attribute, but you choose what it says and the possibilities are endless. You want to "Watch for Flooding" tag? Just write it in.

 

Some fault tags as being too anarchic, but if you include associative relationships then "Floods Sometimes" would be similar enough to "Watch for Possible Flooding" to trigger a positive.

 

Additionally, allowing finders to add their own tags would refine the attributes even greater.

 

I personally pushed for a "Commando" attribute, but it didn't go anywhere. "Commando" would be a signal that one doesn't need to read the description. Filter on "Commando," load your GPS, and go. No descriptions necessary. However, TPTB decided in their infinite wisdom to not include it. Not even a "Requires Reading Description" attribute was included.

 

Tags would have been a much more useful addition to the site.

[+fishingdude720]

How about:

 

 

I like this the best

Thanks!

[+fishingdude720]

How about this? "Area may be flooded"

[+fishingdude720]

so does anyone think this attribute should be added

[+Dither]

I like the idea. The little icon should have the guy holding an umbrella while walking throught he flood water... or caring a TV over his head.. j/k

[+fishingdude720]

so that is about 8 people I think that like this idea! Is it able to be made official?

[+fishingdude720]

Can this be made an official attribute. It seems alot of people like it and would use it.

[+Ed & Julie]

How about something that refers to "This spot is prone to flooding" which would indicate that it's below the high water mark or otherwise has evidence that this area can easily fill with water and causing the cache to be submerged part time?

How about cachers hide their caches above the flood line

[+fishingdude720]

How about something that refers to "This spot is prone to flooding" which would indicate that it's below the high water mark or otherwise has evidence that this area can easily fill with water and causing the cache to be submerged part time?

How about cachers hide their caches above the flood line

Alot of places here on the coast of NJ it is pretty hard.

[+fishingdude720]

seems that this got lost

 

BUMP

[+fishingdude720]

BUMP

[+fishingdude720]

Please can you make this??

[+baloo&bd]

How about something that refers to "This spot is prone to flooding" which would indicate that it's below the high water mark or otherwise has evidence that this area can easily fill with water and causing the cache to be submerged part time?

How about cachers hide their caches above the flood line

 

I agree, if it is prone enough to flooding to require an attribute and it has rapids that make it look like the "Amazon" possibly this is not the best location for a cache.

[+Cardinal Red]

Given the ongoing flood of attribute requests - I'm starting to think people want to be able to filter, download, and go.... Without the bothersome bit of actually reading the cache page.

 

Flood pun intended?

And you are correct. It seems very few cachers read cache pages. I have never filtered by attribute. The current functionality doesn't seem very useful anyhow. I do carry cache pages with me on a PDA, and always look at that. Of course attribute information is not transfered to the PDA.

 

But for the cache pages I do look at on line, I take notice which attributes have been set. Of course the Needs Maintenance Attribute is becoming far to common, and for long periods of time. Can you say absentee cache owner.

 

But I say to the OP. Yes, I think a "Prone To Flooding" attribute would be a good idea.

[+gnbrotz]

Filtering by attribute would be much more attractive (and probably used alot more) if they actually worked properly in PQs. Why use a 'feature' if you can't rely on the results?

[+fishingdude720]

How about something that refers to "This spot is prone to flooding" which would indicate that it's below the high water mark or otherwise has evidence that this area can easily fill with water and causing the cache to be submerged part time?

How about cachers hide their caches above the flood line

 

I agree, if it is prone enough to flooding to require an attribute and it has rapids that make it look like the "Amazon" possibly this is not the best location for a cache.

 

The cache is on high enough land that it will not get wet. Just the trail you have to use to get to it. I found once cahce one day and it was completely dry and the grass was tall. I was in the area the next week and after it rained the area was a mess, there was no grass, alot of mud, and you couldn't really get out here.

 

If you just come to contradict me don't even bother to post in my topic.

[+flask]

 

If you just come to contradict me don't even bother to post in my topic.

 

once you start a topic it is no longer yours. the discussion belongs to all of us.

 

i use the attributes like this: i get to a location and read up on the cache so i have an idea of which set of gear and clothing to wear and bring. of course i have water shoes in my car and will want to change into quick-drying pants.

[+Kacky]

I think that'ssuch a rare occurrance that it should just be addressed in your description and people need to pay attention to the description. An attribute would send mixed signals that it's ok to place a cache that could get flooded out.

 

Of course, if it is flood season, you could up the difficulty of the cache so that people would know they might need a dinghy to get to the dry land that the cache is on!

[+sbell111]

How about something that refers to "This spot is prone to flooding" which would indicate that it's below the high water mark or otherwise has evidence that this area can easily fill with water and causing the cache to be submerged part time?

How about cachers hide their caches above the flood line

I agree, if it is prone enough to flooding to require an attribute and it has rapids that make it look like the "Amazon" possibly this is not the best location for a cache.

I disagree. My Caesar's Library cache was in a location that flooded a few times per year. When the river rose, the cache was pretty much in the flow. I was protected by floating debris by the nearby trees and tied off so it wouldn't float away.

 

I made an effort to make sure that it was temporarily disabled on those days that it could not be easily accessed, but I'm sure that I missed some. This attribute would certainly have been useful to me.

[+Jhwk]

So saying "this area occasioanlly floods" in the text isn't good enough?

 

read before you go.

 

If I filtered out the ticks, I wouldn't find any caches...

[+sbell111]

So saying "this area occasioanlly floods" in the text isn't good enough?

 

read before you go.

 

If I filtered out the ticks, I wouldn't find any caches...

There are two lines of thought regarding this. First, the same could be said about every attribute. So why do we have attributes? Second, you can't do a PQ on the cache description.

[+Jollylolly]

The cache is on high enough land that it will not get wet. Just the trail you have to use to get to it. I found once cahce one day and it was completely dry and the grass was tall. I was in the area the next week and after it rained the area was a mess, there was no grass, alot of mud, and you couldn't really get out here.

 

If you just come to contradict me don't even bother to post in my topic.

 

That's like saying flying will never be safe as long as you have to drive to the airport.

How many situations do you need to cover for in the attribute list?

[+baloo&bd]

If you just come to contradict me don't even bother to post in my topic.

 

Wow, state the obvious in response to a question and told "not to bother" posting if you do not agree with the original premise. Ain't forums great!!

 

Adding a "flood" attribute would wind up being abused like the complaints in other threads about the Scuba attribute. People would start using it for high ground, desserts, etc. as a joke. In this case, cachers may not use them for fear of chasing people away.

 

There are too many attributes as it is, many never used, Putting it in the description should be more than enough. Aside from that, disabling when the cache is flooded would be better.

Edited April 11, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+sbell111]

There are too many attributes as it is, many never used, Putting it in the description should be more than enough. Aside from that, disabling when the cache is flooded would be better.

With my cache, I hesitated to put it in the description because it was a multi and having it in the description would hint at the final location.

 

Also, I tried to disable it when I knew it was flooded, but I couldn't visit the location every time it rained to see if it was, indeed, flooded.