Jump to content

Scuba / Rappelling Cache Types


Wreck Diver
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

A number of exceptional and demanding SCUBA caches exist at this point, to include the 'The Rapture of the Deep' - (Scuba MultiCache) aboard the Bimini Barge in 90 to 100 feet of water in the Bahamas, and Yukon Diving (SCUBA, Underwater) aboard a former Canadian destroyer in 90 feet of water off of San Diego, California.

 

There are also a number of exceptional rappelling caches, to include the traditional cache Cliffside #6, the rappelling multicache Cliffsides and Caverns, and the rappelling event Cliffsides and Grapevines.

 

Under the current cache listing difficulty ratings, caches that require specialized equipment such as SCUBA or rappelling equipment automatically generate a five star rating.

 

The cache owners are spending a tremendous amount of time developing and implementing the SCUBA and rappelling caches because of the difficult environments and the safety concerns, so there is a higher degree of cache quality.

 

The cache finders who seek the underwater or elevated caches are equally as committed, and they are setting aside pre-planned weekends to stockpile the necessary equipment to tackle the extreme challenges presented with each cache type.

 

Given the automatic difficulty ratings and the level of commitment that the cache owners and cache finders are showing for SCUBA and rappelling caches, I would like to suggest that SCUBA and rappelling cache type finder/owner icons be developed to recognize these outer limits.

Link to comment

They already have attributes, so that the caches you describe are easily searchable by premium members via pocket queries.

 

Apart from that, a cache is a cache. Your smiley on the scuba cache is just as round and yellow as the next guy's smiley earned from hiking 12 miles through a river gorge, or my mom's smiley for walking 200 feet to a 1/1 cache... using a portable oxygen tank.

Link to comment
the caches you describe are easily searchable by premium members via pocket queries.

While I agree that an additional cache type isn't warranted for exceptionally difficult caches, I would disagree that difficult caches are "easily" searchable. Do a PQ for caches with the SCUBA attribute. See how many of them actually require SCUBA.

 

I think lots of people put extra attributes on their caches because they are pretty. Wish there was some sort of check system on them.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

Dredging the forums for old threads again, but...

the caches you describe are easily searchable by premium members via pocket queries.

While I agree that an additional cache type isn't warranted for exceptionally difficult caches, I would disagree that difficult caches are "easily" searchable. Do a PQ for caches with the SCUBA attribute. See how many of them actually require SCUBA.

I happen to have illustrated the appalling state of our scuba attribute on my "scuba" cache page. The part that irks me the most, however, is that it keeps getting worse. Might I be so bold as to make a humble request of the cache reviewing powers that be?

 

***PLEASE***, DO NOT PUBLISH ANY MORE "SCUBA" CACHES THAT *OBVIOUSLY* AREN'T!

 

I don't want to sound ungrateful for the work you guys do. I know what fun a nearly thankless (and all too often, somewhat adversarial) job can be. (I've been a sound guy... the main difference is that instead of being flamed, I've been yelled at in person and almost punched.) As a diver and a long-time cacher, however, it seems to me as if at least the blatant misuses of the scuba attribute could be, and should be, curbed as a matter of policy. Otherwise, why in God's blue oceans do we even *have* a worthless attribute?

 

Divers have a long history of self-policing (and the occasional flame war... but DIR really *is* brilliant/stupid/irrelevant, I tell you!). If there were at least a contact reviewer and a stated policy of "crap is something up with which we will not put, at least regarding the scuba attribute", it would go a long way. We can handle the "Is <10 meters scuba or free-diving?" debate, but the drylanders with their "OOOOOh, perty!" junk is something that needs to go if there can be any real usefulness at all.

Link to comment

At this time, the volunteer cache reviewers are not expected to look at cache attributes as a formal part of the review. We generally do not hold up publication because the owner chose not to use the attributes, nor because we think an attribute was poorly chosen. Also, attributes are commonly added following publication and there is no audit trail like we now have for coordinate changes. So who knows what got reviewed?

 

Some reviewers make *suggestions* about attribute choices. For example, if I see a one star terrain cache but no attribute or text suggesting that it's handicapped accessible, I will leave a note on the page with a link to the famous ClayJar rating system. This has triggered more than a couple of snotty e-mails where I am told to mind my own business, where does it say anything about this in the guidelines, etc.

 

I would want to see something in the listing guidelines to support the reviewers before they are asked to become the attribute police. A raise would be nice, too.

 

All that being said, I very much appreciate your frustration.

Link to comment
If there were at least a contact reviewer and a stated policy of "crap is something up with which we will not put, at least regarding the scuba attribute", it would go a long way.

This is a good idea, but I wouldn't limit it to just the SCUBA attribute. Many of the more interesting attributes are being abused.

 

Perhaps a contact reviewer where you submit caches with incorrectly selected attributes. This reviewer could investigate, email the owner, and resolve the decision. As geocaching is spread among the masses, some babysitting is necessary.

 

I like the idea of searchable attributes, but as ClayJar so well demonstrated by his wonderfully produced SCUBA cache page, they're not very useful without some sort of review. ClayJar, have you emailed some of the folks with 1/1 caches asking them why they have them listed as SCUBA?

 

As Keystone said, a paragraph or two in the guidelines would provide the necessary wording, and a dedicated reviewer for the matter would not add additional responsibilities to day-to-day reviewers.

 

Jamie

Link to comment
I think lots of people put extra attributes on their caches because they are pretty. Wish there was some sort of check system on them.
This must be a regional thing. I haven't noticed any inaccurate attributes on the caches around here. There's a local "in joke" where many caches in the San Francisco Bay area have the "no snowmobiles" attribute, but even though it's silly, it isn't inaccurate.
Link to comment
This must be a regional thing. I haven't noticed any inaccurate attributes on the caches around here. There's a local "in joke" where many caches in the San Francisco Bay area have the "no snowmobiles" attribute, but even though it's silly, it isn't inaccurate.

I wouldn't be so sure. Here's a screenshot of Clayjar's map of inaccurate SCUBA attribute:

 

noscuba.jpg

 

Sure, it's a small percentage of caches in the Bay area, but that's a significant percentage of the total number of caches with the SCUBA attribute.

 

Jamie

Link to comment
Given the automatic difficulty ratings and the level of commitment that the cache owners and cache finders are showing for SCUBA and rappelling caches, I would like to suggest that SCUBA and rappelling cache type finder/owner icons be developed to recognize these outer limits.

 

While a lot of times I resist the "Micros are a type" type of posts, I think this may have some merit.

 

Bear with me a moment.

 

Types, or categories as they are sometimes called, offer the seeker a feel of the type of hunt. Traditionals are a single stage hunt. Multis are hunts with more than one stage. Events are short lived group meetings. Puzzles/Mysteries/Unknowns are an anomaly, but take Puzzles alone these are riddles, puzzles, or other things folks have to figure out before they can go into the field. Mystery/Unknowns are simply where you don't want to give away the type of hunt it is.

 

But if we can parallel puzzles for a minute with what the OP is telling us it would stand to reason another type could be made. A puzzle requires some sort of preparation, generally solving a puzzle or riddle to determine the coordinates. A new type could be created for all caches that require some sort of training like SCUBA, rock climbing, white water boating, or what have you.

 

I don't think minor preparation would fit in this category, it should be specialized skills and equipment. It shouldn't include the need for a boat, a length of rope, etc. that generally jumps a 2 star cache to a 5 star.

 

Also, like a hybrid, you could attach some additional elements to it like maybe a certain level of description.

 

Obviously this needs further fleshing out, but I think it a good move.

 

EDIT: wordo

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Call it an "adventure cache," perhaps?

 

The only thing I worry about is putting a cache reviewer in the position of judging what is cool enough to constitute a cache challenge requiring special skills. Heck, for me it is an adventure to cross the parking lot, lift the lamp post skirt and make it back to the car without losing my keys or locking them in the car. It could be problematic along the lines of the "wow factor" test for virtuals. I still haven't forgiven my daughter for inventing that test. But, I plan on using it in a few short years as the basis for saying yes or no to prospective boyfriends. :)

 

On the other hand, if you let the hider self-select the adventure cache type, then we would no doubt see caches with a heightened sense of self-importance. Witness the attribute inflation documented above by ClayJar and JamieZ. So some degree of review is probably a good thing.

Link to comment
I think lots of people put extra attributes on their caches because they are pretty. Wish there was some sort of check system on them.
This must be a regional thing. I haven't noticed any inaccurate attributes on the caches around here. There's a local "in joke" where many caches in the San Francisco Bay area have the "no snowmobiles" attribute, but even though it's silly, it isn't inaccurate.

 

No Snowmobiles= :)

 

The attribute is "May Require Swimming" not SCUBA, so I don't see what the fuss is about (re: attributes searches giving SCUBA people false hopes)

Link to comment
The only thing I worry about is putting a cache reviewer in the position of judging what is cool enough to constitute a cache challenge requiring special skills.

Perhaps formal definitions of at least a few of the attributes would minimize that. I'm not sure coolness necessarily applies here. It should be fairly straightfoward. I mean, is the cache underwater or is it not underwater? Does the cache require climbing gear or does it not?

 

If fact, implying that the attributes are "cool" is part of the problem. Attribute abuse happens because of perceived coolness. "Look! My cache has a SCUBA icon on it! It's awesome." There should be an emphasis on the objectiveness of the attributes.

 

Attributes like "Dangerous Area" are more subjective, but it's my opinion that simply having a dedicated reviewer ask the owner of a 1/1 cache if it's a "Dangerous Area," it will require that owner to rethink the attribute. When folks are obligated to answer for their actions, they're more likely to do the right thing.

 

I hate to make complicated a great resource provided by geocaching.com, but it seems like if you give the kids some toys, they're going to break them unless you watch carefully.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

... It could be problematic along the lines of the "wow factor" test for virtuals. I still haven't forgiven my daughter for inventing that test. But, I plan on using it in a few short years as the basis for saying yes or no to prospective boyfriends. :)

 

 

Be careful what you wish for ....

 

 

 

 

 

stoner.jpg

:)

Link to comment

I'm not really surprised this is not getting much traction.

 

Perhaps some attributes should only be reviewer set? Would that work?

 

When the cache is created and before approved the owner can change certain attributes at will, but afterwards it takes a reviewer or admin to change like cache-type is now. Only certain "approved" attributes need to be like this--SCUBA being one.

 

Today, attributes can be changed at will so it would be a waste of time for an admin to change an attribute as the owner can just change it back.

 

Then, mis-attribute-ed (Hey, I made up a word.) caches can be changed as they are brought to the attention of reviewers much like mis-categorized caches are now.

 

I also agree with some sort of guideline of when certain attributes can be used. This would make these attributes more useful.

 

EDITED TO ADD: it might not be all that hard to implement this. Simply check to see if the cache is active and turn off certain selections for the cache owner on the attributes page. That should solve it unless there's more going on under the hood.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

The only way I can see a SCUBA type cache would be if it had to be approved by another external organization before posting to geocaching.com. I'm not a SCUBA person so I don't know of the organizations but I'm sure theres a national or international organization, if they could be convinced to help they could set the guidlines for posting that type of cache. I sort of envision it looking somthing similar to earthcaches. I want to plan/place a SCUBA cache? I have to go through this organization to make sure it's approved and safe. Just my thoughts.

Link to comment

I can see it now. All scuba attributes must be approved by NAUI... I mean SSI... I mean GUE (it's tech, after all)...

 

No, wait! PADI can offer a new specialty! "C-cards! Get your C-cards! Hot off the printer, collect all eight!"

 

Seriously, though, unlike all the subjective attributes, "requires scuba gear" has a rather trivial first-order test: "Is it anywhere the h-e-double-hockey-sticks near water?" If not, it's an abuse of the attribute and a flat-out lie, and prank cache pages are a valid reason to use the "should be archived" log, eh? :rolleyes:

 

On a slightly related note, might I ask whether it would be discouraged for a group of us to start a concerted effort, as cachers who are certified divers and therefore have a direct interest, to form a small confederation to collectively approach the people abusing *our* attribute? I know it's a flame fest waiting to happen, but since nothing is going to be done by those who have powers from above, a grassroots movement appears to be all we can have.

Edited by ClayJar
Link to comment

Log:

 

Cache Requires Maintenance: Showed up with my Wet Suit and Full Scuba tanks but found no water anywhere nearby. Water should be replaced as soon as possible to match the cache attributes!

 

----

 

BTW: I did a quick check by doing a search for caches with the Scuba Attribute. I didn't find a true Scuba cache anywhere on the first page of my search :rolleyes:

Edited by Right Wing Wacko
Link to comment

RWW: Wouldn't it be rude to submit such a log? If the cache requires trivial maintenance, the cacher who discovers the problem should lend a hand. I'll just have to whip up a bunch of inexpensive cache-sized dive slates and some cut down pencils, and then when I see a "scuba" cache that has inexplicably dried out, I can fill it with water and leave a clean slate.

Link to comment
Any idea why the worst clusters are around Dallas and Los Angeles?
L.A.? Because there are a lot of people there. Dallas? Because PRanger is there.
If you find a cache with the scuba attribute that does not actually actually require scuba, why not just write the owner?
Have you ever tried to talk to PRanger, for example? :anicute: Edited by ClayJar
Link to comment
Does the cache require climbing gear or does it not?

 

That can also be deceptive. I submit to you: Deathwish?

 

While rapelling / climbing gear is a definite asset here for those who wish to be alive afterwards, lots of people are doin' the stoopid.

That is a truly amazing eample! Thank you! I am astounded that anyone would attempt such a feat without safety gear, and yet I know of some less-extreme examples locally as well. Personally, for that (Death Wish) cache, I would have used plenty of climbing gear!

 

BTW, we do not seem to have any caches in our area (Maryland, parts of southern PA and West Virgina are also nearby) which incorrectly bear the SCUBA attribute.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

 

Have you ever tried to talk to PRanger, for example? :lol:

 

 

Okay, so that's one. <shrug> Since you know not to trust this cacher on this subject, it's easy enough ignore or otherwise filter out their caches if they aren't what you are interested in. Do we really need to redesign the current system because of a couple of people like this?

Link to comment
Okay, so that's one. <shrug> Since you know not to trust this cacher on this subject, it's easy enough ignore or otherwise filter out their caches if they aren't what you are interested in. Do we really need to redesign the current system because of a couple of people like this?
You've apparently not understood where I'm coming from. I'm not asking for any redesign at all.

 

All *I* would like is an official policy (*specifically* on the "Scuba Gear REQUIRED" attribute, as it is quite distinct) that says that the we as scuba diving cachers can politely ask attribute abusers if they would remove the attribute, and if they don't, the reviewers will remove the attribute (and if the abuse is repeated on the cache, archive the cache). If each review would be a quarter "gratuity", collected and donated quarterly to the reviewers as thanks for the extra work, that would be fine and would likely reduce the noise floor (or at least make it a slightly rewarding noise floor). If we had to get together to "sponsor" an attribute-specific reviewer (since that would be just compensation for the additional work), that could gladly be worked out, too.

 

Without any policy regarding abuse of the "Scuba Gear REQUIRED" attribute, it is all but worthless. I have put in my time and effort to work toward cleaning it up, but with those cachers who misuse the attribute intentionally and maliciously, the lack of any policy for dealing with the abuse makes all my work (and that of others) nothing better than a fool's errand.

 

(For the record, I have been slowly working through the caches, starting with the cachers I've met, to try to make some grassroots progress, but it is quite uncomfortable to have no official policy on which to base my humbly-phrased polite requests. As for filtering them out, if it were possible to filter out based on a public bookmark list, then as long as I keep the list updated, and we tell every scuba diving cacher to ignore it, and none of them want to look for any of the non-scuba "scuba" caches... It's just not a workable option, and it shouldn't be necessary to work around very obvious abuse.)

Edited by ClayJar
Link to comment
Since there are so few legit SCUBA caches, how about just adding those to a public bookmark (I think this has been done)? I know it's not the desired solution, but it does solve the problem.
And there's always the approach of creating a public bookmark list called something like "Non-SCUBA caches that misuse the SCUBA attribute".
Link to comment
And there's always the approach of creating a public bookmark list called something like "Non-SCUBA caches that misuse the SCUBA attribute".

I think this is a fantastic idea. Peer pressure does good things. Until GC.com will back up the attributes with some sort of policy, create two bookmarks. One of legitimate SCUBA caches, and the other of non-SCUBA caches with the SCUBA attribute. Bookmarks can be assigned to appear on each cache page.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

You're not talking about something like:

 

Caches apparently misusing the Scuba Gear REQUIRED attribute.

 

If bookmarks were shown on the main results page, or if there were a way of saying "I wish to temporarily ignore this bookmark list", it might help online searches, but tell me again how this helps when you're doing a Pocket Query on the scuba attribute? As far as I can tell, PDA caching programs don't have a magical psychic link that can tell you whether the hider is BSing, and to the obvious reply of "Well, why not just do a bookmark list PQ, instead?" If that's the official solution, then why don't we get rid of the pathetic excuse for an attribute, since it apparently only exists to satisfy attribute lust.

 

Just give me one simply official answer: Does the "scuba gear required" attribute exist to help scubacachers find scubacaches? If the answer is yes, let's actually have a discussion about what it would take to clean it up. If the answer is no, it's time to put it out of our misery.

Link to comment

You're not talking about something like:

 

Caches apparently misusing the Scuba Gear REQUIRED attribute.

 

If bookmarks were shown on the main results page, or if there were a way of saying "I wish to temporarily ignore this bookmark list", it might help online searches, but tell me again how this helps when you're doing a Pocket Query on the scuba attribute? As far as I can tell, PDA caching programs don't have a magical psychic link that can tell you whether the hider is BSing,

 

No, but most of them do have ignore lists. You can download the bookmark of offending caches and apply it against the PQ of SCUBA caches to output a corrected list to the PDA.

Yes, I think it's wrong to abuse ANY of the attributes, since every time someone does that it dilutes the usefulness of the system, but in the meantime you have a fairly easy 3rd party solution to the problem.

Link to comment

There are, at my last update, 177 caches using or abusing the "scuba gear required" attribute. That's a miniscule fraction of the total number of caches, is it not?

 

There are also people, myself included, who have looked at each and every cache in the list, and who continuously monitor the list for updates. Doesn't that pretty much make the official reviewing workload a relatively small burden?

 

The attribute *means* *something* to scubacachers. Obviously, to non-scubacachers, it means a pittance. Still, wouldn't it at least be an interesting feasibility study for attribute review? The number of caches affected is fairly small, and the work required to monitor the attribute is minimized as much as possible, and the attribute provokes strong feelings.

 

Why not try out attribute review with the scuba attribute, and see how it ends up? True scubacaches are intrinsically a special case of geocaching, so it's hardly the end of the world to let the attribute be a special case for a trial, if nothing else.

Link to comment

I can see it now. All scuba attributes must be approved by NAUI... I mean SSI... I mean GUE (it's tech, after all)...

No, wait! PADI can offer a new specialty! "C-cards! Get your C-cards! Hot off the printer, collect all eight!"

 

Seriously, though, unlike all the subjective attributes, "requires scuba gear" has a rather trivial first-order test: "Is it anywhere the h-e-double-hockey-sticks near water?" If not, it's an abuse of the attribute and a flat-out lie, and prank cache pages are a valid reason to use the "should be archived" log, eh? :grin:

 

On a slightly related note, might I ask whether it would be discouraged for a group of us to start a concerted effort, as cachers who are certified divers and therefore have a direct interest, to form a small confederation to collectively approach the people abusing *our* attribute? I know it's a flame fest waiting to happen, but since nothing is going to be done by those who have powers from above, a grassroots movement appears to be all we can have.

;):grin: too true

 

edit to add: PADI DM

Edited by Recdiver
Link to comment

While I originally posted the topic as a request for icons for SCUBA cache types and for Rappelling cache types, the discussion has evolved to also include the relatively rampant abuse of the SCUBA attribute for caches that may not even be proximal to a waterway.

 

I suggested that these cache owners are spending a tremendous amount of time developing and implementing the SCUBA and rappelling caches because of the difficult environments and the safety concerns, so there is a higher degree of cache quality.

 

The contrary point of view was that a cache is a cache, and that the SCUBA attribute is easily searchable by Premium Members via pocket queries, so there is no need for a new cache type to fit the SCUBA or Rappelling realm.

 

I believe that a Premium Member search of the SCUBA attribute currently provides a list of 177 caches.

 

After sorting through the 159 mis-attributed caches, only 18 caches remain in the United States that actually require SCUBA.

 

When the Project A.P.E. publicity stunt was unveiled in 2001, Geocaching.com embraced the concept with creation of a Project A.P.E. cache type icon. This icon was only allotted to nine Project A.P.E. caches in the United States, of which only three remain.

 

I know the volunteer reviewers have enough of a challenge in researching and approving all of the caches in the queue, particularly with the huge influx of low quality micros in chain store parking lots, so I don't expect to have them police each attribute selection a cache owner selects for their initial cache page, let alone trying to monitor the attributes after the cache is approved.

 

I believe that the simple solution would be to create a SCUBA cache type as proposed, and unless the SCUBA cache type is selected by the owner during the cache submission, then the SCUBA attribute would be greyed out and unselectable. Having this coding restriction would also eliminate post-approval attribute selection as well.

 

SCUBA diving is one of the few areas where geocachers can safely and recreationally venture into an atmosphere that is considered IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) without the required safety equipment. This isn't a spontaneous venture, and prior training, proper equipment, and planning are demanded for the undertaking.

 

The development of the SCUBA cache type and the restrictive selection of the SCUBA attribute should be inherent.

Link to comment

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here; my wife's a diver but I am not (at least not currently).

It's the same argument as the people who want micro's to have their own cache type. SCUBA is not really a cache type; it's just the type of gear needed to reach the cache.

A cache can require SCUBA and still be any of the current cache types and sizes.

Since GC.com currently uses the icon to define cache types, to properly add SCUBA to the mix would require creating at least 5 different SCUBA icons.

  • Traditional SCUBA
  • Multicache SCUBA
  • Puzzle/Mystery SCUBA
  • Letterbox Hybrid SCUBA
  • Event SCUBA (Now THAT sounds like a fun event I would go get certified to attend!)

No, cache attributes are the proper way to handle SCUBA caches. The question becomes what to do about missuse of the attributes.

People who missuse them (any, not just SCUBA) are making the feature less helpful, and defeating the purpose it was intended for.

Maybe people who intentionally misuse the attributes part of the system should be treated the same way as people who misused TBs and cache pages. Have TPTB archive and lock the offending caches until they agree to stop abusing the system.

Link to comment

While I originally posted the topic as a request for icons for SCUBA cache types and for Rappelling cache types, the discussion has evolved to also include the relatively rampant abuse of the SCUBA attribute for caches that may not even be proximal to a waterway.

 

I suggested that these cache owners are spending a tremendous amount of time developing and implementing the SCUBA and rappelling caches because of the difficult environments and the safety concerns, so there is a higher degree of cache quality.

 

The contrary point of view was that a cache is a cache, and that the SCUBA attribute is easily searchable by Premium Members via pocket queries, so there is no need for a new cache type to fit the SCUBA or Rappelling realm.

 

I believe that a Premium Member search of the SCUBA attribute currently provides a list of 177 caches.

 

After sorting through the 159 mis-attributed caches, only 18 caches remain in the United States that actually require SCUBA.

 

When the Project A.P.E. publicity stunt was unveiled in 2001, Geocaching.com embraced the concept with creation of a Project A.P.E. cache type icon. This icon was only allotted to nine Project A.P.E. caches in the United States, of which only three remain.

 

I know the volunteer reviewers have enough of a challenge in researching and approving all of the caches in the queue, particularly with the huge influx of low quality micros in chain store parking lots, so I don't expect to have them police each attribute selection a cache owner selects for their initial cache page, let alone trying to monitor the attributes after the cache is approved.

 

I believe that the simple solution would be to create a SCUBA cache type as proposed, and unless the SCUBA cache type is selected by the owner during the cache submission, then the SCUBA attribute would be greyed out and unselectable. Having this coding restriction would also eliminate post-approval attribute selection as well.

 

SCUBA diving is one of the few areas where geocachers can safely and recreationally venture into an atmosphere that is considered IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) without the required safety equipment. This isn't a spontaneous venture, and prior training, proper equipment, and planning are demanded for the undertaking.

 

The development of the SCUBA cache type and the restrictive selection of the SCUBA attribute should be inherent.

Allow me to jump in here with a few thoughts; I am a SCUBA diver and former cave diver (one of the early members of CRF), (although I have not dived in at least 14 years), and I am a rock climber.

 

First, allow me to say that I am AMAZED at the vast number of caches which misuse the SCUBA attribute. I can understand if a "tall tale" cache, aka "creative story" cache, might use the SCUBA attribute if relevant, but then then (until and if the admins at geocaching.com create a new category called "Additional Requirements") the cache should be classified as a "?" (mystery) cache, and in fact, I see very few tall-tale caches among the caches which incorrectly employ the SCUBA attribute. In fact, most of the caches bearing the SCUBA attribute are in the 1/1 to 2/2 range, which is bizarre. So, I continue to wonder, why is it that so many cache hiders apply the SCUBA attribute if their cache is not a SCUBA cache? I find it very irrational and bizarre, and I have not yet heard a sane and rational explanation as to why cache hiders do such things!

 

Next, as for requesting that SCUBA be implemented as a new cache type, much as was done for APE caches, well, the observation and question which come to my mind are: In the case of the APE caches, the movie distribution company likely paid a nice promotional fee to geocaching.com to fund such operational changes to the website and database. Are you offering to pay geocaching.com for the implementation of the SCUBA type categories and icons? If not you, Wreck Diver, then who will pay the price? (Please understand that I am not attempting to bait you or flame you, but asking a sincere question. I always enjoy reading your posts on the forums, but this time you have raised some issues to which I feel impelled to respond.) Since real SCUBA caches number under 25, and the number of seekers is far lower than the volume of seekers who have pursued APE caches, is it really necessary at this time to implement such a feature, or rather, can the more dedicated SCUBA enthusiasts just try to lean on the "cheaters"?

 

And, how excited do we really want to get about misuse of either of these icons, anyway? In other words, how much importance do we want to attach to this issue? If we were to take it to the extreme, we could reasonably expect that in short order we will also see the following groups of cachers lobbying for creation of new categories/types to address abuse of the following icons:

  • healthcare professionals and botanists arguing for creation of a set of "poison plants" cache types in light of abuse of the "poison plants" attribute
  • abandoned mine enthusiasts and cavers arguing for creation of a set of "abandoned mine" cache types and "cave" cache types in light of abuse of the "abandoned mine" and "spelunking" attributes
  • members of trail clubs asking for a special set of "difficult hike" cache types in light of misuse of the "significant hike" attribute.
  • rock climbers and mountaineers arguing for creation of a set of "difficult climb/gear required" categories in light of misuse of the "difficult climb" and "climbing gear needed" attributes.

I could go on an on, but I am sure you are getting my point. Why go to the extent of implementing large changes, including adding at least five new categories (i.e., for SCUBA caches), when the attributes appear to be so much better suited in most ways for denoting so many qualities and characteristics of a cache? Yes, they will be misused to some extent, but there are usually ways of managing that!

 

Lastly, as far as the climbing gear/rappelling attributes icons, we own several extreme caches for which we employ these attribute icons, and I used climbing gear in placing all but one of these caches (and would use my gear if and when I visit that one again.) However, I must admit that some cache hunters manage to find these caches without employing climbing gear -- I do not approve of this, and I do not recommend this, but I cannot control their lives and their choices. And so the fact remains that a certain percentage of the finders of some of these caches do not use climbing gear -- does this mean that a diehard climber should come along and argue that I must remove the attribute from these cache listing pages?

Link to comment

I noticed several of the hiders of the non-SCUBA caches on your list are (semi)regular forum participants. Could we use some peer pressure to ask them to remove the attribute?

 

Snoogans

SixDogTeam

Pablo Mac

King Boreas

the federation

Lil Devil

 

Jamie

Link to comment

Feel free to do what you wish. I just updated the lists again. One cache had the attribute removed... and several new dry land caches showed up with it.

 

The fact that the bookmark list is currently rated useful by 1 of 12 users just goes to show how very little non-diving cachers care. I suppose it's easier to be a jerk than to give even a millihoot who you're hurting by abusing the system.

 

(Really builds your faith in the fine, upstanding qualities of geocachers. The last time I felt this disappointed was when I tried to get a CITO organized and got a general "we don't give a hoot about that", which is precisely what is being said about CITOing the attribute abuse now.)

Edited by ClayJar
Link to comment

I feel your pain.

 

It's really hard to give a hoot when every single time you try to do something good for the community you get folks actively "not caring." Not only do they not want to make the hobby better, they don't want you to make the hobby better.

Link to comment
The fact that the bookmark list is currently rated useful by 1 of 12 users just goes to show how very little non-diving cachers care. I suppose it's easier to be a jerk than to give even a millihoot who you're hurting by abusing the system.
Think of it this way: 11 cache owners abusing the system noticed your list.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...