Level of bushwacking attribute

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I was adding attributes and images to my cache pages today and I noticed there's a hiking distance attribute. I like that.

 

Are there any plans to add a bushwacking attribute similar to the hiking distance one?

 

Some days I'm up for trail blazing and some days I'm not. The Terrain rating doesn't always cover the bushwacking element because some T's are high simply because the hike is long, even if it's all on a sandy path.

 

Thoughts? Links? Thanks!

[+John in Valley Forge]

It's probably something that should just be covered in the description, since it would vary so much from cache to cache. Plus is will change over time as geotrails form or vegetation dies off for the winter.

 

Not a bad idea though to have an attribute that indicates yes or no if bushwacking is needed. Sometimes you may think the cache is someplace in the clear but it turns out to be quite a trek. Not that the trek itself is not fun, but not everyone is prepared for that at all times.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

Yes, I think long treks and bushwacking can be fun! You hit it though, sometimes I've started a cache hunt and not been prepared.

 

The bushwacking level does change so even noting it in the cache description would need updating. That's why an attribute would be helpful. Can be changed quickly and at least indicate low, medium or hard. Just a thought!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yes, I think long treks and bushwacking can be fun! You hit it though, sometimes I've started a cache hunt and not been prepared.

 

The bushwacking level does change so even noting it in the cache description would need updating. That's why an attribute would be helpful. Can be changed quickly and at least indicate low, medium or hard. Just a thought!

 

While I agree that knowing before you go out whether a cache is going to require bushwacking, the problem in general with attributes is that there is no enforcement mechanism in place to make them retroactive. There are over a million active caches today and I imagine a significant number of them require bushwacking. Even if an attribute were made available tomorrow there would still be a lot of caches which require bushwacking that would never have the attribute applied.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

That is true. But a Cache Owner can go back and revise their cache pages. I actually wish more COs would do this. Add attributes as they become available and edit cache pages to reflect the current condition of the cache if it's changed dramatically.

 

Maybe because I am new, I seem to hunt for many caches that were place 2-5 years ago. Back then the Terrain may have been a 1.5, but 5 years later it's grown into a 3 or more! I usually just mention that in my found log and I appreciate when either COs update their cache listing or seekers mention it in their logs.

 

I think that's part of being a good CO. But I can understand if someone owns 30+ caches that updating them can be daunting.

 

Maybe even a bushwacking Yes/No attribute.

[+dfx]

That is true. But a Cache Owner can go back and revise their cache pages. I actually wish more COs would do this. Add attributes as they become available and edit cache pages to reflect the current condition of the cache if it's changed dramatically.

hardly any COs actually know about new attributes. you hear about them in the forums, but most cachers don't visit the forums. i don't think the newsletter has any mention of such changes.

[+edexter]

The difficulty/terrain rating system is a very weak numerical system which the assigning of attributes helps somewhat but overall gives at best a hazy idea of how "hard" the cache is to find. In the absence of a realistic scale, you are far better off describing the terrain in some detail on the cache page so people know what to expect, if that is your goal.

The current scale leads to these results: a P&G that requires a walk of 15 feet with a two foot elevation change (steps or slight non-paved slope) that can be found in one minute gets a 2 for terrain. A 1.5 mile 5 stage multi over hiking trails with several 150 elevation changes that might take a bit over an hour rates a 2.5. So the numbers are useless without a written description.

A realistic scale would, at minimum, take into consideration the total distance walked, the difficulty of walking the anticipated trail, the relative amount of time it would take to walk it and the number of objects you have to find. It would also have a simply defined "average cache". If the average cache were given a rating of 1 and defined as, say "a single stage simply hidden cache, requiring a walk of less than a quarter mile one way", the the two examples above, on a 0-5 scale, would have ratings of 0 and 3 respectively and would offer some useful information.

All scales are arbitrary and of limited usefulness in general because people's conception of "hard" varies. I've found that most catchers are pretty consistent within their own rating system, which is to say that you have to learn what a "2" means for a each person.

edexter

[+rawkhopper]

Not to mention you can only have like 10 attributes per cache. That really stinks. There are several more I could add to a cache I am reating but have to choose the most important attributes to apply.

[+entogeek]

The term bushwhacking has caused some of our parks to put restrictions in place for geocaches. One example is the Rouge Park on the outskirts of Toronto. We need to get their approval before placing a cache so they can verify that the cache is within a metre or two of an approved trail. If bushwhacking is required then they will not approve its placement and our local reviewers are aware that we need to get the park's permission. A bushwhacking attribute could work if one can indicate that it is not required as you can with other attributes.

Edited December 13, 2010 by entogeek

[+rawkhopper]

That is true. But a Cache Owner can go back and revise their cache pages. I actually wish more COs would do this. Add attributes as they become available and edit cache pages to reflect the current condition of the cache if it's changed dramatically.

 

Maybe because I am new, I seem to hunt for many caches that were place 2-5 years ago. Back then the Terrain may have been a 1.5, but 5 years later it's grown into a 3 or more! I usually just mention that in my found log and I appreciate when either COs update their cache listing or seekers mention it in their logs.

 

I think that's part of being a good CO. But I can understand if someone owns 30+ caches that updating them can be daunting.

 

Maybe even a bushwacking Yes/No attribute.

I wish co's would go back and edit spelling mistakes and inaccuracies... Well maybe they should keep them cuz if they don't edit their listing chances are they don't maintain their cache so maybe it is a good indicator of a bad cache

 

Sorry for the rant it just sounded applicable.

 

P.S. Incorrect spelling in a post and a cache listing are different

[+The VanDucks]

The only sure way I've found to know what sort of physical effort is involved is reading the cache description and also looking back at a number of logs; if the difficulty/terrain ratings are high, I look back at more logs! Sometimes if the cache description is lacking in detail, previous logs let you know if you need waterproof boots, a hiking pole, bug spray, etc. For our own caches, I do add notes on the cache page if I think the cache will present any unusual challenges. We are cachers in our sixties, and have to make sure we are up to the physical effort involved, so we are careful about terrains rated three and above!

[+edscott]

"Bushwhacking " is a very subjective term. Some think walking through the woods off trail is a "bushwhack". To others that's just a walk in the woods. I suspect the data gained by an attribute wouldn't really be of much value. Plus the term 'Bushwhacking" carries a lot of negative connotations to many land managers. It is probably better to refer to it as off trail navigation. I'd rather see something in the text of the page like "the last 300 to 500 meters are off trail". That plus the aerial photo will tell me more than a Bushwhacking required attribute.

[+edscott]

I wish co's would go back and edit spelling mistakes and inaccuracies... Well maybe they should keep them cuz if they don't edit their listing chances are they don't maintain their cache so maybe it is a good indicator of a bad cache

 

Sorry for the rant it just sounded applicable.

 

P.S. Incorrect spelling in a post and a cache listing are different

 

Agree... a poorly written cache page certainly sends up warning flags to me. I know loads of people that don't care about spelling accuracy and do care about other things, but it is tough to know for sure until you've done a few of their caches. My spell check continues to work in these boxes, so any errors here are intentional.

[AZcachemeister]

There is only ONE level of bushwhacking:

 

INTENSE

 

If you aren't bleeding like you just lost a fight with a cheese grater, then it wasn't a bushwhack.

[+edscott]

There is only ONE level of bushwhacking:

 

INTENSE

 

If you aren't bleeding like you just lost a fight with a cheese grater, then it wasn't a bushwhack.

 

+1

[+Walts Hunting]

I wish co's would go back and edit spelling mistakes and inaccuracies... Well maybe they should keep them cuz if they don't edit their listing chances are they don't maintain their cache so maybe it is a good indicator of a bad cache

 

So you think that spelling and grammar errors show the quality of the cache and that if they don't spell right they don't maintain their caches.

 

I strongly disagree. Those things have nothing to do with the quality of a cache.

 

I assume you have made sure that the spelling and grammar on all your caches is perfect. All zero of them. Let's remember the old adage about people in glass houses.

[+edscott]

It shows the attention they pay to details. Not a slam dunk that they put out poor caches, but certainly a potential indicator.

[+Chokecherry]

I don't really need a bushwhacking attribute. Usually I look at maps and can get a feel for what maybe involved (swampy areas are kind of a wildcard at times though).

 

It's not bushwhacking for me until I spend half an hour untangling my hair from swamp pines before going for the cache.

[+narcissa]

I think the terrain rating is sufficient. For higher terrain caches, it's always wise to read the cache description and the logs carefully.

[+lamoracke]

have done a 4 terrain cache which was pretty much entirely due to bushwhacking....years later this 4 terrain cache, thanks to a geotrail is 1.5, maybe 2 tops.

[+FloridaFour]

First time I read a cache description that had the term "bushwhacking" in it, it was a swamp in the middle of nowhere and I think the cacher actually took a machete with him, as well as got soaked in the swamp and almost attacked by alligators. Now, THAT's bushwhacking.

 

The first time I DID a cache that said minor "bushwhacking" involved, it meant walking through 1 foot tall weeds for a few feet and ducking under a few tree limbs. Very confusing term!

[mtbikernate]

http://www.alpenglow.org/themes/subalpine/brush-ratings.html

 

FTW

[+Niemela]

I see "bushwhacking as: "To make one's way through thick woods by cutting away bushes and branches." which in no way relates to my idea of geocaching. We should leave as little trail as possible and the find should represent the same challenge to the next cacher.

[+DragonsWest]

I see "bushwhacking as: "To make one's way through thick woods by cutting away bushes and branches." which in no way relates to my idea of geocaching. We should leave as little trail as possible and the find should represent the same challenge to the next cacher.

 

I see Bushwhacking as any excursion Off The Main Trail.

 

I could be bushwhacking in an open field, like Dorothy, et al, in that movie which glorified bushwhacking through a field of poppies, just to get to some ol' Emerald City.

 

Seriously, flattening grass or trodding on plants in the desert has an impact - tred lightly.

[+hzoi]

 

I've used the "thorns" attribute to denote both bushwhacking and actual thorns.

[AZcachemeister]

I see "bushwhacking as: "To make one's way through thick woods by cutting away bushes and branches." which in no way relates to my idea of geocaching. We should leave as little trail as possible and the find should represent the same challenge to the next cacher.

 

Actually cutting away at the bushes is 'bushcarving', a whole other activity/process.

 

Chances are you would never know if a true bushwhacker had passed on the path you are following.