Jump to content

Feature request: Tree climb attribute


thebruce0
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I'd like to make a request for the addition of a new cache attribute, "May require tree climbing". In my experience, a cache requiring one to climb a tree is quite a different experience than simply 'difficult climbing' - big difference between a tricky hill and a tree, and with some other attributes that also aren't too dissimilar to others, it may be a valuable distinction to make in many cases.

 

It may also be a welcome addition for people who do not want to climb trees at all for whatever reason, who could filter for it in PQs as well.

Link to comment
I'd like to make a request for the addition of a new cache attribute, "May require tree climbing". In my experience, a cache requiring one to climb a tree is quite a different experience than simply 'difficult climbing' - big difference between a tricky hill and a tree, and with some other attributes that also aren't too dissimilar to others, it may be a valuable distinction to make in many cases.

 

It may also be a welcome addition for people who do not want to climb trees at all for whatever reason, who could filter for it in PQs as well.

I'd be adding that attribute to many of my ground caches, just to provide a little misdirection. Others would put caches in trees, but not use the attribute, for the very same reason.
Link to comment

I'd be adding that attribute to many of my ground caches, just to provide a little misdirection. Others would put caches in trees, but not use the attribute, for the very same reason.

:laughing:

 

How about putting the wrong container type as well. Or putting in the wrong terrain and difficulty ratings. Or even better, deliberately make the coordinates 100 feet out.

 

There's a big difference between missing information and wrong information. Well done misdirection doesn't require lying, just ambiguity. Like when someone says the container is magnetic (which it really is) but it's in a tree. Nothing in that statement said it was attached to something metallic.

 

If you said the cache was up a tree, either with an attribute or in the description, and it was purposely on the ground and I risked climbing the tree for nothing then I'd been really ticked off. Please don't do that to your fellow cachers.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...

Link to comment

"may require" ???

 

Either it does or does not. Using the attribute would become a dead giveaway for any cache using it.

The "may require" phrase is used for the wading and swimming attributes, presumably because the water may not be there when you go.

 

So, yeah, it should just be "Tree climbing required".

Link to comment

"may require" ???

 

Either it does or does not. Using the attribute would become a dead giveaway for any cache using it.

Well, many attributes are 'dead giveaways', and you don't have to include it if you intend it to remain a mystery. It's not a required attribute, just as none of the rest are.

 

"May require" could refer to a container that some may need to climb for while others could find an alternate method (I've had instances of someone using a tool to retrieve a container that was intended to be retrieved by climbing, for example). So that means either having "May require" and "Does require" attributes, which is just excessive. Just as with "May require wading/swimming", there could be alternate means of retrieving a container, but the attribute implies the intended method.

 

It's as informative, and as required, and as useful as any other attribute, and just as mis-usable, as we've seen just posted above (which I agree is awful and bad form for any cache owner).

 

And as with any other attribute, a misuse or inaccuracy can easily and quickly be corrected, either honestly or via contacting a reviewer.

 

I haven't read any good reason not to have it as an attribute yet...

Link to comment

...

It's as informative, and as required, and as useful as any other attribute, and just as mis-usable, as we've seen just posted above (which I agree is awful and bad form for any cache owner).

 

And as with any other attribute, a misuse or inaccuracy can easily and quickly be corrected, either honestly or via contacting a reviewer.

...

 

I took the post as some rather heavy sarcasm due to the suggested "may require" clause not as a literal suggestion - but I could be wrong.

Link to comment
I took the post as some rather heavy sarcasm due to the suggested "may require" clause not as a literal suggestion - but I could be wrong.

True, but even if meant in sarcasm, the point being made could apply to any other attribute as well, so really it's moot.

Link to comment

I'd be adding that attribute to many of my ground caches, just to provide a little misdirection. Others would put caches in trees, but not use the attribute, for the very same reason.

:laughing:

 

How about putting the wrong container type as well. Or putting in the wrong terrain and difficulty ratings. Or even better, deliberately make the coordinates 100 feet out.

 

There's a big difference between missing information and wrong information. Well done misdirection doesn't require lying, just ambiguity. Like when someone says the container is magnetic (which it really is) but it's in a tree. Nothing in that statement said it was attached to something metallic.

 

If you said the cache was up a tree, either with an attribute or in the description, and it was purposely on the ground and I risked climbing the tree for nothing then I'd been really ticked off. Please don't do that to your fellow cachers.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...

I wouldn't do it myself, most likely... I was just using that as an example, because for sure, it would be done. Besides, the suggested attribute does not state that is IS up a tree. It states that it MAY be in a tree. Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I'd be adding that attribute to many of my ground caches, just to provide a little misdirection. Others would put caches in trees, but not use the attribute, for the very same reason.

:laughing:

 

How about putting the wrong container type as well. Or putting in the wrong terrain and difficulty ratings. Or even better, deliberately make the coordinates 100 feet out.

 

There's a big difference between missing information and wrong information. Well done misdirection doesn't require lying, just ambiguity. Like when someone says the container is magnetic (which it really is) but it's in a tree. Nothing in that statement said it was attached to something metallic.

 

If you said the cache was up a tree, either with an attribute or in the description, and it was purposely on the ground and I risked climbing the tree for nothing then I'd been really ticked off. Please don't do that to your fellow cachers.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...

I wouldn't do it myself, most likely... I was just using that as an example, because for sure, it would be done. Besides, the suggested attribute does not state that is IS up a tree. It states that it MAY be in a tree.

See.....

 

....and the comment certainly did not apply to other attributes - "may" is simply not the right term for such an attribute.

Link to comment

Well, many attributes are 'dead giveaways', and you don't have to include it if you intend it to remain a mystery. It's not a required attribute, just as none of the rest are.

Exactly. If you don't want to give away it's up a tree then don't include the attribute.

 

"May require" could refer to a container that some may need to climb for while others could find an alternate method (I've had instances of someone using a tool to retrieve a container that was intended to be retrieved by climbing, for example). So that means either having "May require" and "Does require" attributes, which is just excessive. Just as with "May require wading/swimming", there could be alternate means of retrieving a container, but the attribute implies the intended method.

There are a few other attributes that don't have "may require" and you can probably find an alternate way do get to them. Not having the "may require" on this one will be more clear so hiders won't be tempted to put it on a cache listing just to try to annoy cachers. Finders will treat the attribute as "it is up a tree".

 

I haven't read any good reason not to have it as an attribute yet...

It's a good attribute to have. Some people will use it to avoid caches while others will use it to find tree climbs.

Link to comment

Again, "May require wading" or "May require swimming" is also accurate - one could use a boat. "May require climbing" either means it WILL require climbing, or one could find an alternate method of retrieval that does not require climbing (such as being tall, using a ladder, finding a really long stick, etc).

The intended means of retrieval, not necessary the absolutely required means, is what the attribute implies.

 

I'm of course not dead set on having "May require" in there, the wording isn't as important as the attribute itself, imo, but I'm just explaining why I feel that part is indeed on par with and very similar to other attributes which use the same wording.

 

eta:

There are a few other attributes that don't have "may require" and you can probably find an alternate way do get to them. Not having the "may require" on this one will be more clear so hiders won't be tempted to put it on a cache listing just to try to annoy cachers. Finders will treat the attribute as "it is up a tree".

true, and again I think there are example attributes in this case on either side of the fence. So, *shrug* :laughing: I just want to be able to classify caches that are intended to involve climbing trees, hehe

Link to comment

Does anybody know how long it has been since a new attribute has been added? I sure can't remember one, despite numerous suggestions over the years. Now that attributes are supported in .GPX files, other systems that use that data may be affected, as well.

Link to comment

How about may require utilization of a bucket truck... sissorslift... swiss seat and lines?

 

For the most part, I believe that requiring people to climb a tree is nearly as destructive to a tree as putting in climbing spikes or screws. There is going to be damage to the tree. Perhaps not from one monkey-climber, but as those numbers grow -- there is going to be damage. I look forward to GS banning caches that require a tree be climbed in order to obtain the cache.

 

A cache hanging in a tree doesn't bother me, it's the climbing requirement, resulting in potential damage.

 

Just my 2¢. :laughing:

Link to comment

I wouldn't do it myself, most likely... I was just using that as an example, because for sure, it would be done. Besides, the suggested attribute does not state that is IS up a tree. It states that it MAY be in a tree.

Taking knowschad off my cache ingnore list... :laughing:

 

That's why the "may require" should be dropped. Like I said, only the water ones have that phrase as the water might not be there all the time.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment

Does anybody know how long it has been since a new attribute has been added? I sure can't remember one, despite numerous suggestions over the years. Now that attributes are supported in .GPX files, other systems that use that data may be affected, as well.

Lost and found attribute. But it wasn't a user suggestion. Last user suggested one was "Flashlight required".

 

The addition of the lost and found attribute did not cause any issues. Looks like all the programs that can process attributes are smart enough to ignore new ones or at least not puke on them.

Link to comment

Just as a sidenote, since I'm being picky -

the suggested attribute does not state that is IS up a tree. It states that it MAY be in a tree.

 

The wording was "May require climbing a tree", not "May be in a tree". A minor difference, but an important one.

Just to note... =)

(again, I'm not dead set on having "may" in there, just saying)

Link to comment

Just as a sidenote, since I'm being picky -

the suggested attribute does not state that is IS up a tree. It states that it MAY be in a tree.

 

The wording was "May require climbing a tree", not "May be in a tree". A minor difference, but an important one.

The key difference here is in describing what may be required to complete/find a cache, as opposed to the actual location of a cache, which may not itself, or any physical stage, be in a tree. The attribute could be used, for example, on significant hikes where a tree may be a required passage from one spot to another perhaps...

Just to note... =)

(again, I'm not dead set on having "may" in there, just saying)

 

(edited)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

How about may require utilization of a bucket truck... sissorslift... swiss seat and lines?

Don't give the LPC hiders any ideas....

 

For the most part, I believe that requiring people to climb a tree is nearly as destructive to a tree as putting in climbing spikes or screws. There is going to be damage to the tree. Perhaps not from one monkey-climber, but as those numbers grow -- there is going to be damage. I look forward to GS banning caches that require a tree be climbed in order to obtain the cache.

Depends on the tree. The last few we climbed around here were big enough that it would take a saw to do damage to them.

 

More damage can be done to an area by bad coordinates or missing containers than a tree climb that only a few cachers would attempt.

Link to comment
More damage can be done to an area by bad coordinates or missing containers than a tree climb that only a few cachers would attempt.

This.

 

eta: however, Gitchee-Gummee presented one of the main demographics for whom I think the attribute would be useful - for those who do not wish to climb trees for any reason, including opinions regarding harming trees by such acts. At least this lets them easily distinguish 'good' from 'bad' caches =)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

The wording was "May require climbing a tree", not "May be in a tree". A minor difference, but an important one.

Actually it's the "May require" that's the problem. "May be in a tree" would suffer that same problem as caches could be in a tree at ground level.

 

"Tree Climbing Required" seems to be the best verbiage.

Link to comment

I'm no doubt in the minority here, but I would appreciate the inclusion of a "Tree climbing required" attribute. Although I can still handle some fairly high terrain situations, tree-climbing is no longer on my "can do" list. In fact, I've promised loved ones that I'll no longer indulge in any tree-climbing attempts.

 

In deciding whether to go after a high-terrain cache, I read the cache description and the logs to try to determine if the cache is high in a tree. If it is, it goes on my Ignore List. If I can't determine this from the information on the cache page, I'll often travel to the site to find out for myself. It's always a disappointment when I discover that the cache is high over my head in a tree. I'll log my DNF, then put it on my Ignore List and move on.

 

I can understand how some cache owners, in some situations, may not want to reveal that their cache is up in that tall tree, but for people like me it can be a bit of a letdown.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

...

"Tree Climbing Required" seems to be the best verbiage.

Ok - I can buy into that phrasing. I still doubt that very many Co's will use it but I could see a big benefit as well.

 

With about 1100 finds and 211 DNF's over 8+ years - I have only encountered 4 caches that 'required' any kind of tree climb.

Link to comment
With about 1100 finds and 211 DNF's over 8+ years - I have only encountered 4 caches that 'required' any kind of tree climb.

Come to southwestern Ontario.

Or check one of my bookmark lists.

We have many tree-climbing caches in the area.

Sure, they're as common as lamp-post 1/1's, but they are out there, and in some places in hordes. ;P

Link to comment

With about 1100 finds and 211 DNF's over 8+ years - I have only encountered 4 caches that 'required' any kind of tree climb.

Just for fun, I consulted my Ignore List and found an even 50 caches requiring tree-climbing (a few requiring you to climb multiple trees) within 25 miles of where I live. And that's just the ones where tree-climbing is mentioned specifically in the cache description.

 

There are quite a few others that are rated high-terrain in an urban environment (local Metro parks) that are almost certainly tree-climbers. I know those parks very well, and there's simply no way to hide a cache with an honest 4-star or higher terrain rating in those areas without putting it high in a tree.

 

A few cache owners in this area seem to favor this sort of hide. Another reason I would appreciate a tree-climbing attribute.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Lots of tree climbing required caches around here. Some along the lines of "you want me to climb THAT? .... HOW!?".

 

I'd appreciate the Tree Climbing Required attribute - but I'm the kind of person these days that would actually TARGET those caches. On the other hand, isn't there already a May Require Climbing attribute?

 

climbing-yes.gifrappelling-yes.gif

 

combined with, say wheelchair-no.gif it does *suggest* it could be up a tree. Particularly if there's no mountains near the cache (ie: Southern Ontario away from the Niagara Escarpment).

 

Still, Tree Climbing Required is an example of a potentially useful attribute. Perhaps this is being held up more by the PQ selection page source code more than the icon artwork.

Link to comment
I'd appreciate the Tree Climbing Required attribute - but I'm the kind of person these days that would actually TARGET those caches. On the other hand, isn't there already a May Require Climbing attribute?

Yeah I addressed that earlier on in the thread. IMO, a tree climb is a very different kind of beast than steep hills or sheer cliffs, both in climb style and in nature (literally - one's rock one is life, which some people do consider a game-changing difference)

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...