Cache listing protocol

[+jazzmonster]

I've been wondering lately whether cache listing protocol would be helpful. It would certainly have helped me yesterday! While GPSs are clever little units, they are not as easy as using a computer - especially when you are out in the field and your fingers might be very cold or you're trying to keep the dog still while scrolling the screen for the next cache or whatever. This feature could be made easier by the Cache Listing page having more specific fields but until then, just bearing the following in mind when listing caches might be helpful, especially when out with, or for newbies.

 

I would be interested to know your thoughts and your suggestions. One of my favourite types of caching expedition is circular series (especially in an area that I am unfamiliar with). Here's some of the niggly things that I think could be improved.

 

LONG CACHE NAMES (FOR SERIES)

The cache name is quite long, followed by the number of the cache in that series e.g. "VERY LONG CACHE SERIES NAME, NUMBER 14". Fine on the computer, but on your GPS in the field, you get a screen full of "VERY LONG CACHE SE". (In reality you might get a few more characters but this is just to demonstrate that often the number gets chopped off so it's difficult to work out which cache comes next. "Find Nearest" doesn't always bring up the next number in the series and it's not always possible to prepare a route listing in advance.

 

I.N.I.T.I.A.L.S

Full stops after initials in cache names, make for tedious GPS searching. They're not necessary & take up character space so much better without them e.g. INITIALS not I.N.I.T.I.A.L.S

 

CACHE SERIES NUMBERS

It might be helpful to give the total number in series in a title? e.g. "EXCITING WALK 3/9" so you know you're on cache three of nine.

 

CACHE DESCRIPTIONS (SERIES)

It might be helpful for the descriptions to be in reverse order. Usually, the format is:

 

1. "This cache series is about ... long & detailed (and interesting) explanation behind the series".

2. Information about this cache

3. Helpful information e.g. parking or crossing waypoints

 

Out in the field, this might be more helpful in reverse order. If you are on cache 12 for example, you know the life history of the local pub or whatever the series is about, almost off by heart by now and to get to the information you are after you have to do endless scrolling. What's more, you might miss important info at the bottom. This format is fine for the first cache but for all the other caches in the series, reverse order might be less frustrating e.g.

 

1. Helpful information e.g. parking or crossing waypoints

2. Information about this cache

3. "This cache series is about ... long & detailed (and interesting) explanation behind the series".

 

COMFORT / ASSISTANCE

I always prepare as much as I can for a walk and make sure essentials are packed in my rucksack but it's always possible to get caught out one way or another. I often think that it would be nice to know if there is a general convenience store or pub nearby, en-route to a cache. This might be particularly helpful for older / younger / family cachers who might find it difficult to walk the series in one go but if they could stop for an ice-lolly / another packet of plasters / pub lunch, they could perhaps go a bit further and enjoy more trails.

 

We did a long walk yesterday and it was very hot. We were fortunate to spot a local pub in the opposite direction to the next cache. A quick stop for a diet coke & a trip to the loo made the whole day so much more comfortable and enjoyable, so I would definitely appreciate this kind of extra info.

[+jazzmonster]

Apologies for the double-post - I got an error message saying 45 seconds had been exceeded and it didn't look like it had gone through. Thought I better check before trying it for a third time!

 

Please could a kindly moderator delete this thread :-)

[jholly]

GC number is nice and short and very unique. I go by GC #. Just about all the other complaints on cache names is resolved by using the GC #.

 

I at least peek at a map and have some idea of where I'm going and the length of the hike. Seems like reasonable prep.

 

Look, most people don't read the cache page anyway, and if I going to put some historical info or other info of interest on the cache page that is going on the top, your going to read it. As for things like parking and trailheads or other points that is what additional waypoints are for, but some don't use them.

 

Nice picture in your avatar and profile.

[+jazzmonster]

GC number is nice and short and very unique. I go by GC #. Just about all the other complaints on cache names is resolved by using the GC #.

 

I at least peek at a map and have some idea of where I'm going and the length of the hike. Seems like reasonable prep.

 

Look, most people don't read the cache page anyway, and if I going to put some historical info or other info of interest on the cache page that is going on the top, your going to read it. As for things like parking and trailheads or other points that is what additional waypoints are for, but some don't use them.

 

Nice picture in your avatar and profile.

 

Thanks for your reply. They're not complaints - I was making observations about improving functions that are available to make life easier. There's only me & my hubby so we don't have to worry about dogs & kids but I still like to think about how I can do things to help others. If a feature is available it may as well be used in the best possible way.

 

I agree that looking at a map beforehand is a good idea - I usually bring one along too (& usually have the car sat nav in the rucksack). I like to be prepared. Often, other people will come with us and some people are not quite so organised or perhaps are just new to caching so I will take extra stuff just in case they need it.

 

I am interested in learning about places of interest and if someone goes to the trouble to research and write about an area or something of interest in a cache listing I always take time to read it. The point was simply, when you've read it once, there is no need for it to be at the top of every cache listing. It should definitely be there on each listing for those not doing a series all at once but at the bottom of the page would be more helpful.

 

My comment about the waypoints was merely that one or two waypoints didn't appear on the GPS on our last trail. If I'd have known, I would've checked my iphone but I didn't and it extended the trail by a considerable time. If there had been a reference to it in the comments, I would've known to check and we would have had time to do another trail.

 

If you are caching in an unfamiliar area, no matter how well you prepare, most cachers are unlikely to learn as much about a place as a local. Therefore it would seem helpful for those with local knowledge to make life easier for other cachers who go to enjoy your caches. Whether they use that information is up to them but if it helps, then why not include it?

 

Thank you - I love the photo too! It was taken by my hubby. I had organised a coach holiday for 54 retired people to Bournemouth. They had a lovely time and the photo was taken in Central Gardens by the hotel we stayed at. There were loads of squirrels and they were really friendly. Here's a video (not mine) of the area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIJDnfAIM38

[+briansnat]

Your complaints regarding cache names are precisely why I use the GC# as the waypoint name rather than the cache name. The latter can be confusing. "Wait, which A Walk in the Park did I find"? GC#s are unique so there can be no confusion. And it's so much easier to key off GC#s when logging a bunch of caches.

Edited May 23, 2010 by briansnat

[+cx1]

I find it very difficult to remember GC numbers. Sometimes due to long periods between placement of a part of a series the GC numbers for the various parts of a series will have very different GC numbers.

 

What the OP is asking for people to consider when naming their caches is something I had not considered before, but I do see the issues they are talking about. I will try and consider their request when naming future caches.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Hi jazzmonster - I agree with you. It would be nice if cache owners considered how cache names display. It would be nice if cache owners put the relevant information in the short description and not buried at the last, especially not at the end of the exact same bit of description

 

As a cacher, I typically query an area, put the query into GSAK, take a look at anything with Cache Name #1 # 9 and 99% of the time delete them from the query.

 

It's rare for the cache owner who can't name a cache with any creativity to HIDE a cache with any creativity. The 1% is for caches in places that look nice.

 

this isn't the response you were hunting, but it is a solution.

[+kunarion]

"VERY LONG CACHE SERIES NAME, NUMBER 14". Fine on the computer, but on your GPS in the field, you get a screen full of "VERY LONG CACHE SE.

I feel your pain. It can be a chore to find a particular number at the end of a long cache name, in the field. I've had similar trouble with extremely long cache descriptions, where the last bit of puzzle text is cut off.

 

There's a recent series along a stretch of road -- on guard rails at the roadside -- and my plan was to start at #1, go in order. But not only are they not in any particular physical sequence, they're randomly on either side of the road. I had to search around the list for the cache at one end of the string (#23 or whatever), so I could drive the 15 miles to it, and do the caches on the way back.

 

It's a preparation thing. I should have done a paper map, written GC numbers, and plotted it all out in advance. This is fine if you go non-paperless. But not planning ahead, I ended up just driving homeward, grabbing an occasional cache as it came into view, and noting which one it was. I couldn't find the first four, some caches were actually placed on the next road over (“120 feet off the highway”, looked like my GPS was going crazy), and it was just not a good day.

Edited May 23, 2010 by kunarion

[+ADTCacheur]

Your complaints regarding cache names are precisely why I use the GC# as the waypoint name rather than the cache name. The latter can be confusing. "Wait, which A Walk in the Park did I find"? GC#s are unique so there can be no confusion. And it's so much easier to key off GC#s when logging a bunch of caches.

 

Yes, but that means you have to memorize that number one in the series is GC####, then number two is GC%%%%, or was it GC$$$$, no, I think that was number 5... It's easier to just click on the cache, go to the cache information page, and see that that cache is number 3 in the series, then go back and look at the next one, then to memorize every cache number.

[+Walts Hunting]

You don't say what GPS you have but the Colorado and Oregon (which show the appreviated title under Find Geocache) show the whole title when you touch description.

 

While what you say would be nice this community generally avoids placing more restrictions and conditions on caches. You just have to live with it. Also remember that adding all those guidelines would mean more rejected by reviewers until changed and greatly increase their workload which would decrease the pay per cache they get since they are on salaryl.

[+dorqie]

I like the idea about cache names.

I am planning on a multi cache circle and I will employ your suggestion.

I will put the number first eg "1/5 cahce circle" (it's a working title lol)

When in the feild I take a "cheat sheet" with me, where i jot down on a piece of paper the cache number, and a few brief notes I've taken off the cache page. I would like to "go paperless" a little more tho.

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe I'm not holding my mouth right? When I load caches like that in my 60CSx, rather than "I am too uninspired to think up a clever name # 1" and "I am too uninspired to think up a clever name # 2", I get "I am too1" and "I am too2", etc, etc. I've never had identical names in my GPSr.

[+tozainamboku]

My first reaction was there is a protocol for cache listing. It's called the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

After reading past the title and first few paragraphs on the difficulty of using a GPS unit, I got to the specific issues you want addressed. (Perhaps we need a protocol for posting forum questions?)

 

These are all complaints we have seen before when geocachers hide a series of caches and don't think about how it looks when someone is out trying to find these with only the information on their GPS unit. These are good suggestions for anyone post a series of caches.

 

However, I would not want to see the guidelines changed to limit what geocachers can use for cache or series names (other than of course that names must be family friendly and non-commercial). I would not want to have requirements on the format of the description of the cache, either. Though I could see some optional sections added to the cache description to help out cachers in the field. Attributes were added with that intent, but until recently, attributes were not included in the GPX file, and I suspect that there still are no GPS units that display attributes.

 

Other than attributes, I'm not sure what else a cache owner can to indicate the conveniences that might be found along a route. I understand that in the UK, series of walking caches are popular. Here in the states we might have power trails, but often a cache outing is a just looking for the all the caches in the neighborhood. The cache owner would not know the route or order the cache are done in so suggesting places to stop for lunch may be difficult. It would also run into the non-commercial guidelines. You couldn't use the cache page to suggest a particular pub to stop at. You might get by with "The town has several pubs where you can stop for a bite to eat".

 

What some people do is use third party software like GSAK to change the names of geocaches. GSAK has something call a smartname that can be used to shorten the common parts of names, remove unnecessary article from the front of the name, etc. A bit of preparation using a good tool on the computer before heading out to find caches can save you some trouble.

[+redsox_mark]

The OP makes some good points. I have notices some COs put the numbers for a circular walk first: e.g. "#01 ring - the start", then "#02 ring - the next one" etc, which does make it easier for me than to put the numbers at the end.

 

Also, some COs do add helpful information to cache pages - pub nearby, or add additional waypoints to make a route easier to follow. I always appreciate these.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

GSAK codes and macros can probably help with naming issues.

 

Check out the one called ShortenSeriesNames at http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=...amp;#entry69706

[+StarBrand]

A good reason to skip some series is when they have almost identical names and descriptions.

 

I too use the GC number over the name. Too difficult to remember which "walk in the park" cache I really found.

[+The Jester]

There are a number of things you can do to help yourself - while waiting for everyone else in the world to change . GSAK is a powerful tool that can help relieve several of your issues. Aside from the macro mentioned above, it has a built in function that allows you to shorten series names to anything you'd like for the ShortName (Tools=>Options=>General tab, Smart Name - conversions). So you could change "Green River Series" to "GRS" before the Smart Name is calculated.

 

I've used the User Sort column to number the caches on a run in order, and then output the data with that number first: GPSr = run # GC code (07 GCXXXXX), PDA/CacheMate = run # cache name (07 This Cache).

 

There is the "grab coordinate" function which will add Additional Waypoints (called Child waypoints in GSAK) using co-ords found in the descripton, notes or a text file.

[+jazzmonster]

Again, my comments are not complaints, merely suggestions how to make life easier. Not just for myself but for others too. Newbies watching the little Geocaching video on the geocaching website homepage are told about Geocaching, all you do is "to go outside and locate hidden containers ..." and "all you need to do is to plug these co-ordinates into your GPS device and head outside to find the cache". Sounds easy, right? No mention of locating, downloading and learning how to use other software as well, although it's not absolute necessary but it makes life easier. A bit like two steps forward, one step back! For some people - older people who might not be very computer literate for example, this might be enough for them to think Geocaching is too difficult and give up before they start.

 

I'm sure that most people going out geocaching go prepared and know which caches they are going to look for and where they are. But what about those times where you find yourself away from home, with perhaps half an hour or so to spare, you are in a new area and you would like to see if there are any caches about to go hunting for? You might have even created a route in advance for your trip but don't want to spend time doing lots of research on it as you might not get chance to do any caching at all.

 

I am all for keeping the rules simple and often a little thought for others is all that is needed. It is likely that a large number of cachers going to a cache are not familiar with the area and they would prefer to spend time hunting for the cache, not hunting for the listing on their GPS.

[+jazzmonster]

I like the idea about cache names.

I am planning on a multi cache circle and I will employ your suggestion.

I will put the number first eg "1/5 cahce circle" (it's a working title lol)

When in the feild I take a "cheat sheet" with me, where i jot down on a piece of paper the cache number, and a few brief notes I've taken off the cache page. I would like to "go paperless" a little more tho.

 

I'm working on a a circular series (one of my favourite types of caching trip - especially in unfamiliar areas) and was going to do this myself. However it occurred to me that if I used the number first, then it could end up as the equivalent of naming each cache with the same starting letter eg "A". You might have to scroll through a long list of numbers first.

 

Perhaps a good way is this format:

 

1. Initials

2. Number e.g 1/9, 2/9, 3/9 and so on

3. Phrase

 

I think this is a good example - a series I am looking forward to doing soon: "WR1 - Bouldermobile". It's based on the Wacky Races cartoons. The letters at the beginning are short and so doing a search will bring the series up together, you can clearly see which number you want. The longer description at the end "Bouldermobile" gives you a little more info but wouldn't matter if that was chopped off a little. If all you could read was "Bouldermo" you would still know which cache you were looking for.

 

There are quite a few series that I've seen (and done) like this. However, some of them use a full-stop after each letter e.g. B.U.S or C.C.T. My (Dakota) GPS will only search for them if I include the full-stop - I couldn't just type in BUS, I'd have to type in B.U.S. The full-stop is not on the same screen as the alphabet, making searching very time consuming, as well as taking up valuable character space.

 

In contrast, the owner could've called them "WACKY RACES SERIES BOULDERMOBILE 1". In this case, my GPS would display something like "WACKY RACES SERI" for each cache. Instead, by using a very good description "WR1 - Bouldermobile", it is much more user friendly and I appreciate it.

 

Paperless geocaching is the way to go, so like yourself, I want to make any future caches that I do, as helpful as I can to those who would like to try to find them.

Edited May 31, 2010 by jazzmonster