New Bushwacking Attribute Proposal

[+Co-Stars]

There are a significant number of cachers and potential cachers who are turned off by bushwacking. Indeed many when they discover the bushwacking involved will never cache again. And some, like myself, are just too old or not able to physically do bushwacking. The terrain attribute is totally subjective and rarely has anything to do with amount of bushwacking involved.

 

I propose just a simple check box (or it could be a number I suppose but why make it complicated and more subjective?) which is to be checked if there is bushwacking or undergrowth more than 1 foot high. Geocaching.com could then add this attribute so people can search using it (along with pocket queries). This would greatly expand the sport to allow those who won't do or don't like bushwacking to enjoy it also. What do you all think?

[+briansnat]

I think the terrain rating when used properly is sufficient. Any system will depend on its being used properly, even an icon for bushwacking.

[+conradv]

I think the terrain rating when used properly is sufficient. Any system will depend on its being used properly, even an icon for bushwacking.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

I too would like to have some other rating for "0ff-trail" adventures. A lot of people have no idea as it is how to interpret the Terrain ratings, sometimes even mixing up the Difficulty ratings with them in the bargain (which is another of my pet peeves - Terrain is a thing, Difficulty is a condition... but that's beside the point).

[+Co-Stars]

I just realized I said it wrong (wrong polarity). I meant to say

 

"I propose just a simple check box which is to be checked if there is NO bushwacking or undergrowth more than 1 foot high."

 

This way not checking it doesn't change anything as to the way the system exists right now. So it is backward compatible.

 

Now obviously any system will depend on it being used properly. The fact that at times it may not be used properly is not a reason for not having it. The existing system is not always used properly right now but that is not a reason to abolish it. It still is better than not having it. Anyway a "NO Bushwacking" checkbox would be far easier to judge than the difficulty or terrain.

 

Some typical examples of intended usage is where the hide is in a paved parking lot, or concrete parking ramp, or in a building, or on a golf course, or softball field, etc. You get the idea. The hider purposely intends there to be no bushwacking whatsoever but he has no way of expressing that. A terrain of 1 doesn't mean no bushwacking - just that there is no steep hills. Now he can check "NO Bushwacking" and still specify a terrain.

[+NotThePainter]

What I don't get is how you would know to apply the attribute.

 

On my last set of finds I found a cache (a micro in a tree) that was on the trail. There was no bushwhacking. Ok, that one is easy. The previous one had about 500 feet of bushwhacking, nasty, swampy bushwhacking. Ok, that is easy.

 

The previous one was 5 feet off the trail. There was 5 feet of bushwhacking. Should the hider have checked the box?

 

When is it too much? 5 feet? 25 feet?

 

I think there is a subjective component here that will be hard to measure. Some people who hate bushwhacking will be able to tolerate 5 feet, but not 25 feet. Some will tolerate 25 feet but not 50 feet.

 

In my hides I try to tell the person how much they'll have to do. (And the range is 0 feet to about 1.5 miles...)

 

Paul

[+The Leprechauns]

I would actively seek out caches with a bushwacking attribute. It is one of my favorite things to do -- bushwack with just a GPS and compass to guide me to a point in the middle of nowhere, and to do that with as little impact on the environment as possible.

 

Just to be consistent, there should be a "pavement" attribute. If you can stand on or see pavement when you find the cache container, check this attribute. Then, those who wish to filter out park and grabs can do that. Those wanting a numbers run can search for caches with this attribute.

 

During a numbers run last weekend, I found a cache called "Beaver Pond." It was in a lamp post in a dry cleaner's parking lot. I was sad there was no bushwack.

[+geognerd]

I think the terrain rating when used properly is sufficient. Any system will depend on its being used properly, even an icon for bushwacking.

I agree. Quoting one of the questions from Clayjar's Geocache Rating System, which is linked on the Cache Submission page.

Is the path bushy or overgrown?

[ ] Not at all

There is no overgrowth at all.

[ ] Some light overgrowth

An adult could step over or around this.

[ ] Yeah, it's pretty overgrown

It's waist-high or so, or it may be thorny or have poison plants.

[ ] The overgrowth is very heavy

I can't see the other side! Some type of machete or other cutting device is probably needed. Very likely to have thorns or poison plants.

 

Overgrowth refers to any plant or other substance that impedes the path. Keep in mind that conditions change; rate based on your understanding of worst-case conditions.

Bushwhacking is a seasonal activity. Some areas that are Amazon-esque and near impenetrable in the summer are a piece of cake in the fall and winter when the vegetation dies away.

[+KG1960]

I think at least some bushwhacking is what makes all this interesting. However, sometimes I will do a quick cache over lunch hour (I get a full hour) at a nearby city park, and in that case I may prefer no bushwhacking so I don't end up having to go back to work covered in mud or whatever. Some indication would be nice although many cache descriptions already say something about how much bushwhacking is required.

 

As the previous post said, the season may be important. We did some caches in May in a nearby state park and there was little undergrowth. We went to the same park last week and the undergrowth was waist to chest high in places.

 

(edited for grammar correction)

Edited September 9, 2006 by KG1960

[+Jhwk]

And the amount of bushwacking (whacking?) required also relies on which direction you come in for the cache. One of my first cache finds was a little 2/2 multi. Easy, right? After a mile hike through the deep of the ozarks and climbling a 100 foot bluff, I found the cache in an old tree, next to a gravel road.

 

The hint said "you will have to drive somewhere else to find the cache"

 

Nice, if you read the hints.

 

so, in this case it would have no BW icon, but for me, I had enough bushwhacking for a week.

[+ADKcachers]

Wow, now I think that I've seen every complaint. From lack of parking coords to poorly hidden containers and now this?

 

Perhaps some of us should wait until the technology exists to allow the caches to soar effortlessly through the air and find us.

Edited September 8, 2006 by ADKcache

[+tozainamboku]

One of the interesting things about geocaching is you don't know what you will find till you get there and find it. The cache owner can rate their cache, use attributes, and provide an accurate description. But conditions change or the cache owner may choose to hide certain fact to make the cache hunt more challenging. Whether its on a hike in the wilderness or in the strip mall parking lot, I always go curious to see what I will find. If I don't like it for some reason I will stop looking for the cache. Usually I log a DNF and still tell about my experience. I guess my response to the OP is the same as it was for the person who complained about caches hidden in dumpsters behind a strip mall

If you are unconfortable looking for any cache, you should just abort your search. You can log a DNF expressing your concerns. It might get deleted, but then again, some hiders may take it as constructive criticism and will improve their next hide.

or do a better job rating the terrain or using existing attributes or provide a better description.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

It sounds like this problem might be solved by allowing cachers to search by the attributes. A cacher could search for all caches that are Disabled Accessible. Then the system has to make selecting attributes manditory instead of optional, since they become search options.

 

- HauntHunters

[+Cache Heads]

It sounds like this problem might be solved by allowing cachers to search by the attributes. A cacher could search for all caches that are Disabled Accessible. Then the system has to make selecting attributes manditory instead of optional, since they become search options.

Premium members can already search by attributes using Pocket Queries. But, I do not agree with making attributes mandatory. Like tozainamboku said, one of the interesting things about geocaching is you don't know what you will find till you get there and find it and some hiders may want to keep that element of surprise as part of the challenge of their cache.

 

If terrain ratings are used correctly, they should be sufficient. If they aren't, who's to say that an attribute would be used any more appropriately?

[+baloo&bd]

Just to be consistent, there should be a "pavement" attribute. If you can stand on or see pavement when you find the cache container, check this attribute. Then, those who wish to filter out park and grabs can do that.

 

I would support this also. In addition I think we need to add a "step: attribute (some don't like climbing stairs), a pine tree attribute (they can be a real pain), a grass attribute (some like to cache barefoot) and a pollen count attribute.

 

Did i miss any?

[+Always & Forever 5]

 

I would support this also. In addition I think we need to add a "step: attribute (some don't like climbing stairs), a pine tree attribute (they can be a real pain), a grass attribute (some like to cache barefoot) and a pollen count attribute.

 

Did i miss any?

 

Yeah, the "No sarcasm in your posts, please" attribute.

 

Personally, I think the OP had a great idea. As one who caches with a physically disabled child, I would also like to see how much tromping through the woods are required before I took off. We have decided against some of the harder terrain caches simply for this reason.

 

For all of you who can take off on the 5/5 caches with no worries, more power to you. But, not all of us are this lucky, for one reason or another.

[+baloo&bd]

Yeah, the "No sarcasm in your posts, please" attribute.

 

Wait, the OP didn't mean it sarcastically?

 

As one who caches with a physically disabled child, I would also like to see how much tromping through the woods are required before I took off. We have decided against some of the harder terrain caches simply for this reason.

 

For all of you who can take off on the 5/5 caches with no worries, more power to you. But, not all of us are this lucky, for one reason or another.

 

That is why there is an attribute for just your situation and, as you said, you check the terrain ratings.

 

My response, while you view as sarcastic, is exactly what is being asked and what will be asked in the future. Geocaching in all but the urban areas carries a high expectation of bushwacking. having a attribute for it would be redundant, kind of like telling someone skydiving to to expect a sudden falling sensation.

 

The more attributes you add, the less likely they are to be used and or used properly.

[+Always & Forever 5]

 

My response, while you view as sarcastic, is exactly what is being asked and what will be asked in the future. Geocaching in all but the urban areas carries a high expectation of bushwacking. having a attribute for it would be redundant, kind of like telling someone skydiving to to expect a sudden falling sensation.

 

 

I disagree. A well-thought cache placement does not necessarily require bushwhacking, and I have found more that had little or none involved than caches that did. I just don't understand, when we have a whole page of attributes to select from now, that one more can't be added that distinguishes whether or not there is any off-trail hiking required.

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[+BillsBayou]

If there is one thing that I have learned from this crowd (or is it just the people in these forums) is this:

 

There is no bushWHACKING allowed!

 

You must gently coax the bush out of the way. You must then appologize for interfering with the bush's right to occupy it's bush-space. Appologize to the bush sincerely. Snide remarks smaks of species-centricity and is rude.

 

You must also appologize to the top soil for any stresses placed upon it by your roughhousing with the bushes. It takes 100 years, after all to rebuild the specific soil compositions that made it possible for the bush to reach it's bush-potential. Disturbed soil makes it possible for invasive species of flora and fauna to exist.

 

If for any reason, you snap a twig, you must consult an arborist or an agent of your local ag-center for advice. If the bush is a protected species, you AND the person who placed the cache must turn yourselves in for the appropriate adjudicative process to settle the matter. The local cache reviewer should also be contacted so that the cache can be properly SBA'd.

 

You must then attend sensitivity training which are designed to make you feel bad for being a clumsy animal-centric eco-hostile dunderhead. You must also pay for land restoration surveys to determine if environmental remediation is necessary to remove any foreign species which have moved into your zone of contamination.

 

Bear in mind, these recomendations only cover light-pole caches.

[+Always & Forever 5]

If there is one thing that I have learned from this crowd (or is it just the people in these forums) is this:

 

There is no bushWHACKING allowed!

 

You must gently coax the bush out of the way. You must then appologize for interfering with the bush's right to occupy it's bush-space. Appologize to the bush sincerely. Snide remarks smaks of species-centricity and is rude.

 

You must also appologize to the top soil for any stresses placed upon it by your roughhousing with the bushes. It takes 100 years, after all to rebuild the specific soil compositions that made it possible for the bush to reach it's bush-potential. Disturbed soil makes it possible for invasive species of flora and fauna to exist.

 

If for any reason, you snap a twig, you must consult an arborist or an agent of your local ag-center for advice. If the bush is a protected species, you AND the person who placed the cache must turn yourselves in for the appropriate adjudicative process to settle the matter. The local cache reviewer should also be contacted so that the cache can be properly SBA'd.

 

You must then attend sensitivity training which are designed to make you feel bad for being a clumsy animal-centric eco-hostile dunderhead. You must also pay for land restoration surveys to determine if environmental remediation is necessary to remove any foreign species which have moved into your zone of contamination.

 

Bear in mind, these recomendations only cover light-pole caches.

 

Well, yeah. We were using the term hypothetically.

[+briansnat]

I think the terrain rating when used properly is sufficient. Any system will depend on its being used properly, even an icon for bushwacking.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

I too would like to have some other rating for "0ff-trail" adventures. A lot of people have no idea as it is how to interpret the Terrain ratings, sometimes even mixing up the Difficulty ratings with them in the bargain (which is another of my pet peeves - Terrain is a thing, Difficulty is a condition... but that's beside the point).

 

Yes, but there is no guarantee they would "correctly" interpret what bushwacking is either. Would going off trail in an area with no undergrowth or other obstacles be considered bushwacking? Some people might say yes and others might say no.

 

What if the cache is only 10 feet off the trail but you have to walk through brush? Is that bushwacking? Some may say yes, and others may say it isn't.

 

What if there is bushwacking involved if you come from one direction, but none coming from another?

[+Always & Forever 5]

 

Yes, but there is no guarantee they would "correctly" interpret what bushwacking is either. Would going off trail in an area with no undergrowth or other obstacles be considered bushwacking? Some people might say yes and others might say no.

 

What if the cache is only 10 feet off the trail but you have to walk through brush? Is that bushwacking? Some may say yes, and others may say it isn't.

 

What if there is bushwacking involved if you come from one direction, but none coming from another?

 

I think, for the most part, everybody knows what "bushwhacking" means, how it's used, and there would be very little misunderstanding.

 

Of course it's open to interpretation...but aren't all the icons/attributes/hints?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I can sympathise with the OP, but do not support adding ever more descriptive attributes.

 

I am fat, old, crippled (lost a leg), in constant pain (broke my neck), cache on crutches, and am basically lazy and a born couch potato.

 

Yet I have found a few caches over the years.

 

There are few caches I can't do, but a whole bunch I choose not to.

 

Rarely can I not tell from the information already provided on the cache page which is which.

 

There have been times when I walked a forest trail only to get within 100' and find bushwacking or climbing to be required to actually get the cache. Sometimes I go for it; I've gotten to many caches crawling and sliding my butt along on the ground, pushing or pulling with my hands. Other times I turn around, depending on the severity of the bushwack or my mood that day.

 

Either way I enjoy the trip.

 

My suggestion is that you try www.handicachers.com for such detailed information about caches.

 

Good luck,

Ed

[+BillsBayou]

I use these attributes:

 

I also like to include the phrase "no mobility impared" in the short description.

 

It does not imply bushwhacking, but it does let people know that the cache is somewhere harder to traverse than grass.

 

BUSHWHACKING to me implies:

Bush: a woody shrub or larger

Whacking: which must be subdued

Bushwhacking: getting to the cache will require forcing your way through branches which will most likely be broken as you pass or will scratch you all to hell if you're in shorts and shortsleeves.

 

My most recent cache invovlves the inadvertant destruction of small woody weeds in an area where the guys with the bushwhacking equipment will be glad for the assistance. Some trees just need killing.

 

My next cache will most likely be in a parking lot. It's a busy parking lot, but I'll assume common sense and not post a "No Kids" attribute. Given the design of the cache, I wouldn't want to do it in a wheelchair, but only because of how aggravated the drivers tend to be in this poorly designed parking lot.

[Clan Riffster]

I think the terrain rating when used properly is sufficient.

I think Brian has the right idea. I just played with the Difficulty/Terrain calculater, leaving everything at it's easiest setting except for this question:

Is the path bushy or overgrown?

, for which I checked the box listing " Some light overgrowth", which I figure is a good description of a minor bushwhack. The calculator determined it was a difficulty 1, terrain 2. So long as the hiders properly utilize the existing system, you would be able to avoid bushwhacks by filtering out anything with a terrain level higher than 1. Anyone not able to properly utilize the current system, probably couldn't figure out how to click a "No Bushwhacking" button.

 

Edit to add the customary "You da man, Briansnat".

Edited September 8, 2006 by Clan Riffster

[+edscott]

Until "Bushwhacking" has a definition it would be worthless. How many cache pages say something like "some bushwhacking required" when it is 10 feet off a path.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I once took my dad geocaching. He had recently broken his back and was recovering from paralysis in his legs. All the caches we did that day were "no bushwacking" caches, except for the fact that they were located on various sides of various creeks that were loaded with bushes. Sure, we could have gotten to them all without bushwacking, but where's the fun in that?