Feature request: Additional field for distance

[+SpiceIt]

Dear community

 

I raised a question with the Groundspeak general inquiries but they have asked me to raise it here as well. Following ticket was created for reference: [GEO #LBX-995655]: Idea: Additional field to search for?

 

Last couple of weeks we have been doing some multi caches with some distance(17km, 20km,...). It would be a great feature that you can not only search on difficulty and terrain but also on distance for the different kind of caches.

 

These caches with some distance are a nice way of staying a whole day in nature

 

I wonder how the community feels about it.

 

Tx

 

SpiceIT

[+Harry Dolphin]

I vote no, as a requirement. If the cache owner wishes to tell you, that's his/her prerogative. "About a mile round trip hike" is nice to know. True. But not required. I've done a few with five miles between waypoints. One told me that. The other one, we finished a few weeks later.

[+gof1]

No, part of the adventure of a multi is not knowing. I don't need or want to know every detail of the adventure before I leave the house. If I did there would be no reason leave the close proximity of a working toilet.

[+nelson crew]

As an optional field, with ranges (i.e. "1-3 mile drive" vs. "1.37 mile drive down Main street") I could see some usefulness here. This comes after one day a little while back where we were caching out of town and started 3 different multis that ended up being significant drives to the final that we didn't have time to complete. Yes, we run that risk with multis. I'm not complaining about that. Just using it as the basis for my opinion that more info (but not too much) may be helpful.

[CoyoteRed]

I would rather not. It is my opinion the granularity is just about right with this particular scheme. I think paying attention to the terrain rating and type, and then reading the descriptions and logs if necessary, will allow you to make better decisions in the future.

[+L0ne.R]

As an optional field, with ranges (i.e. "1-3 mile drive" vs. "1.37 mile drive down Main street") I could see some usefulness here. This comes after one day a little while back where we were caching out of town and started 3 different multis that ended up being significant drives to the final that we didn't have time to complete. Yes, we run that risk with multis. I'm not complaining about that. Just using it as the basis for my opinion that more info (but not too much) may be helpful.

 

I agree. Multis have their risks and one of them is distance.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing maybe 3 ranges: under 1 mile; 1-3 miles; over 3 miles (under 1km; 1-5km; over 5kms)

[AZcachemeister]

If the owner is going to properly rate their cache, then the difficulty should cover this aspect.

We are all free to abort the hunt if subsequent stages are too far away, or even just because they are in the wrong direction.

It can actually ADD to the fun if the stages are found over a longer period of time.

[Skippermark]

Agree with what others have said. If the owner wants you to know the distance, number of stages and so on, they'll tell you in their description. Some owners even ask for people not include such info in their logs or risk their log being deleted.

 

We just did a high difficulty, somewhat high terrain multi. We didn't know much about it before starting out, but from the attributes posted by the owner, we knew it would be a "significant hike" (long), not able to be done in an hour and a couple other things.

 

From that we gathered that we'd be in for an "epic" cache and didn't expect it to be quick or short.

[+nelson crew]

I think paying attention to the terrain rating and type, and then reading the descriptions and logs if necessary, will allow you to make better decisions in the future.

 

You're right. In this case the rating and difficulty said nothing, but a better check of the logs in advance probably would have provided some clue.

 

If the owner is going to properly rate their cache, then the difficulty should cover this aspect.

 

You're right. This will help to a degree; as part of the larger picture, anyway.

 

If the owner wants you to know the distance, number of stages and so on, they'll tell you in their description.

 

You're right. Thus no need for a field. And obviously trying to make including such information mandatory is a horrible idea.

 

I should have thought this through more before firing off a reply from the hip.

 

I stand corrected.

[+SpiceIt]

I think paying attention to the terrain rating and type, and then reading the descriptions and logs if necessary, will allow you to make better decisions in the future.

 

You're right. In this case the rating and difficulty said nothing, but a better check of the logs in advance probably would have provided some clue.

 

If the owner is going to properly rate their cache, then the difficulty should cover this aspect.

 

You're right. This will help to a degree; as part of the larger picture, anyway.

 

If the owner wants you to know the distance, number of stages and so on, they'll tell you in their description.

 

You're right. Thus no need for a field. And obviously trying to make including such information mandatory is a horrible idea.

 

I should have thought this through more before firing off a reply from the hip.

 

I stand corrected.

I Never realised that the stars for the difficulty were also related to the distance. I thougth these stars only told you something about the terrain. It is just difficult if you like doing some caches with some distance, to look for the right ones without browsing the log.