Do reviewers check attributes for accuracy?

[+rawkhopper]

I was curious if their were any scuba caches in the area. I don't scuba but I can snorkel and was trying to see if any of them could be done with just a snorkel. Well I found 3 that were not near water (traditional cache not a multi or mystery) and 2 of those were in a parking lot, 1 looks like a LPC and the other looks like a nano according to the logs.

 

Should I report these lame attributes? I just logged a message on 2 of them asking why they were scuba required. I am hoping there is an avenue to remove those bogus attributes.

 

Any thing I can do or is this just a fight not worth fighting?

[Keystone]

The answer is no - attributes are optional and are not a listing guidelines issue. A reviewer's role would be purely advisory. It's best to work through your concerns with the cache owners in a pleasant manner.

[+briansnat]

If I see an attribute that is being used inappropriately, I will send the cache owner a note advising him that people use the attributes to select certain caches and by inappropriately using them, he is bound to tick off his fellow geochers.

 

But as Keystone said, it is not a guideline issue so if the cache owner's goal is to mess with and possibly tick off other geocachers, then that is between him and them. I won't not publish a cache because the attributes are inappropriate.

 

If you do see one with an inappropriate attribute, you can mention it in your log. Maybe use a little humor. Find some photos of you in your snorkeling equipment and load them to your log and express your disappointment at not finding any water nearby. Even funnier if you go to the parking lot with your equipment and do it.

 

Some people seem to think it's funny to put a SCUBA attribute on a parking lot cache, or a scenic view attribute next to a loading dock, but it isn't funny to people who are looking for SCUBA or scenic caches.

Edited September 23, 2010 by briansnat

[+LightHouseSeekers]

Aren't they using the scuba attribute on the E.T. Highway just to make to isolate them from caches in the area?

[+rawkhopper]

Thanks for the responses. I am not ticked just perturbed. I wish the attributes were accurate yet I still will accept certain attributes being used to make it easier to find like the scuba attribute for the E.T power trail. It is obvious that there are no scuba attributes needed in the desert.

 

In my neck of the woods though there are plenty of bodies of water where it could be necessary. I thought it would be fun to try one of the scuba ones but I have not actually gone out to see these caches since there doesn't seem to be one that looks appealing close to me.

[+addisonbr]

My local reviewer has asked me to make sure that the 'handicap accessible' attribute is used appropriately (to rate it 1 Terrain and use the wheelchair attribute if it is accessible, and to rate it 1.5 or higher and not use the attribute if it's not). It didn't feel heavy-handed though. Seemed reasonable.

[+niraD]

FWIW, the caches in the ET Highway numbers run trail use the "scuba required" attribute. The caches are easy micros along a highway in the Nevada desert, so there aren't many real scuba caches out there. Basically, there isn't a "numbers run trail" attribute, so the owners picked an attribute that was unlikely to be used for its normal purpose, to make it easier for people to find (or to avoid) the ET Highway caches.

 

And in the San Francisco Bay area, there are a number of caches that use the "no snowmobiles" attribute. Unlike using the "scuba" attribute is for a parking lot cache, it isn't misleading: most places truly would not want you to chew up the landscape with a snowmobile. It's just useless, since few own snowmobiles around here, and no one would use them in an area where it never snows.

 

About the only time reviewers get involved in the choice of attributes is when a cache is rated 1-star terrain but doesn't have the "handicapped accessible" attribute (or vice versa). But even then, they merely raise the issue, and won't refuse to publish the cache for that reason.

[+texasgrillchef]

I was curious if their were any scuba caches in the area. I don't scuba but I can snorkel and was trying to see if any of them could be done with just a snorkel. Well I found 3 that were not near water (traditional cache not a multi or mystery) and 2 of those were in a parking lot, 1 looks like a LPC and the other looks like a nano according to the logs.

 

Should I report these lame attributes? I just logged a message on 2 of them asking why they were scuba required. I am hoping there is an avenue to remove those bogus attributes.

 

Any thing I can do or is this just a fight not worth fighting?

 

Attributes for the most part are VERY VERY hard to "police". True IMHO a Scuba attribute should only be used when scuba or snorkeling equipment are required other attributes such as "Scenic" aren't allways so cut and dry.

 

Scenic for example is one that is up to ones perspective. What I call "Scnenic" others may not and vice versa. I would consider a cache on a boatdock as scenic. Boat dock means it's near a lake, river, or ocean and I would find those scenic to view.

 

All I would recomend is if you find an attribute that you don't think is being used on a cache correctly is to LOG that in the logs. Maybe if enough people agree with you the CO might change the attribute.

 

I own about 100 caches. I have been known to change attributes (Adding them or deleting them) as requested by some geocachers.

 

TGC

[AZcachemeister]

The reviewer has (probably) no concern about the attributes.

Several caches have recently been published (in the Phoenix area) with no attributes whatsoever.

 

Attributes are not required.

 

Correct or applicable attributes are also not required.