Attributes

[+Team_DV]

Hey all,

 

For caches that require bushwhacking, I think there needs to be an attribute that would alert geocachers for the need for such bushwhacking. As most of us know, caches are to be placed on established trails. Sometimes, they simply are not.

 

I understand that some older caches have been grandfathered in, which is fine. Whether a cache falls under this category or for any other reason, if the CO knows that there is bushwhacking required, it should be highlighted in an attribute and not just in the cache description (sometimes it's not even in there!).

 

Again, most of us know that one of the placement requirements is that caches are to be placed on established trails. As such, most geocachers have that expectation. When the CO knows that the cache is inconsistent with CURRENT placement guidelines, it should be made clearly known to fellow geocachers.

 

Your thoughts and comments please . . .

[+mpilchfamily]

Bushwhacking isn't against the guidelines. It only references the need to go off trail a bit to find the cache. It is not meant to imply you'll need to damage foliage in the area to retrieve the cache.

 

Where does it say that caches are to be placed on established trails? I've been through the guidelines many, many, many times and have failed to see any such guideline. A cache placed on an established trail would not last long. There aren't many good hiding places on a trail. You kind of need to go off the trail a bit to hide the cache. Many of the best caches i've found that highlight the best locations are those that are well off the beaten path.

 

I've seen a couple threads around before that debate the term bushwhacking since it does imply causing damage to the area.

Edited August 8, 2011 by mpilchfamily

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I suggested a bushwhacking and/or off trail attribute a while ago but it went nowhere. I still like the idea. Not all bushwhacking harms the environment either, and I enjoy going off trail and bushwhacking at times.

 

Having said that, all my caches are right off the established trails because I like more to have a long hike than to fight my way through palmettos.

 

I don't think bushwhacking say in Myakka Forest here is bad or harmful at all. The entire area undergoes controlled burns and that is much more destructive (in a good, helpful way).

 

I don't think there are any guidelines against bushwhacking.

Edited August 8, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+mpilchfamily]

IF you want to have a new attribute added then you need to find an existing tread or create a new one in the feedback section. Thats where you discuss new features and try to get changes made.

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com

[Keystone]

I am moving this thread from the Organized Geocaching forum to the Geocaching Topics forum.

[+briansnat]

Again, most of us know that one of the placement requirements is that caches are to be placed on established trails...

 

Since when? Some parks may have that rule, but it's not a Geocaching.com guideline.

 

I assure you that most geocachers, at least around here, don't have the expectation that the cache is on an established trail because a significant percentage are not.

 

It's not a bad idea for an attribute, though if I see a terrain rating of 3 or higher I assume that there is a good chance bushwhacking will be involved.

Edited August 13, 2011 by briansnat

[+Isonzo Karst]

As most of us know, caches are to be placed on established trails

 

This reads as land manager policy by some particular agency. There are plenty of places where it isn't policy.

 

Bushwhacking is a very nice idea for an attribute.

[+AmphibianTrackers]

I can't believe how many side of the road caches we have been to that required intense bushwaking. The growth gets wild here in the summertime and the bushwaking has been very difficult. This does not show up in the difficulty rating. In other words, I like the idea and would like to filter out those finds where we know it is going to take a lot of bushwaking to get there.

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

If the attribute were to become reality, I don't think it would last too long on cache pages. After a month or two a geotrail would probably form.

[+Cardinal Red]

Hey all,

 

For caches that require bushwhacking, I think there needs to be an attribute that would alert geocachers for the need for such bushwhacking. As most of us know, caches are to be placed on established trails. Sometimes, they simply are not.

 

I understand that some older caches have been grandfathered in, which is fine. Whether a cache falls under this category or for any other reason, if the CO knows that there is bushwhacking required, it should be highlighted in an attribute and not just in the cache description (sometimes it's not even in there!).

Again, most of us know that one of the placement requirements is that caches are to be placed on established trails. As such, most geocachers have that expectation. When the CO knows that the cache is inconsistent with CURRENT placement guidelines, it should be made clearly known to fellow geocachers.

 

Your thoughts and comments please . . .

Could you provide a gc.com link to these bushwhacking guidelines you seem to know so well? I find them fascinating. I thought I was fairly well acquainted with the placement guidelines, but you seem to have found a section I missed. As far as a bushwhacking attribute, stick to terrain 1.5 caches and you should not have any more problems with that pesky bushwhacking.

[+AmphibianTrackers]

Just to clarify, in my area, 1.5 does require bushwaking. I realize we don't all agree on what bushwaking is but here we have thorny vines and other sorts of nonnative vines that grow very rapidly. A "simple" png turns into a vine cutting or hacking experience in a matter of weeks. The farther off trail, sidewalk or road it gets the more bushwaking is required. Even for caches that were found within the week we have had to hack our way through.

[+St.Matthew]

I can't say I've ever found a hiking/woods style cache that didn't require some bushwhacking. Around here (Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia Panhandle), most of those types of caches are easily 100-300 feet off the trails. I've only found one that wasn't.

[+JL_HSTRE]

An Attribute would be nice, but bushwacking should get represented by having high terrain (3.5-4.5, depending on the bushwack involved) and the cache description should note it as well.

 

Also, when you say "bushwack" do you mean "off trail" or "plunging deep through the bushes"? There's a big difference between going 100 feet of the trail and going 100 feet off the trail crashing through waist-high bushes and palmettos.

 

Serious bushwacking usually seems to limit the geo-trail because not enough people will visit the cache to create one (at least here in SE FL).

[Clan Riffster]

Serious bushwacking usually seems to limit the geo-trail

Thanx Josh. I was just going to point that out. There are many clueless land managers who are stuck on the notion that having caches near established trails will reduce the creation of geo-trails. When I (and another cacher, and a reviewer) worked with Seminole County Natural Lands to create a set of caching rules for their properties, their initial complaint was that, when exploring one of their properties, they discovered a geo-trail and followed it to a geocache. They insisted on a rule that no cache can be placed more than 6' from an established trail. I asked them which cache it was, and they described it sufficiently for me to figure out which one it was. It was within 6' of an established trail. I tried to convince them that their logic was unsound, and that the closer a cache is to an established trail, the more likely it is to have geo-trails over time. They weren't buying it. Now, if you want to cache on one of their properties, you don't really need a GPSr. Just hike till you find a geo-trail, take a few steps and look down.

 

If their goal is to reduce geo-trails, a land manager's best bet is to create a rule requiring all caches to be at least 528' from an established trail.

[AZcachemeister]

If their goal is to reduce geo-trails, a land manager's best bet is to create a rule requiring all caches to be at least 528' from an established trail.

 

1. Way fewer cachers will even consider going there.

 

2. Those that do will most likely choose different routes to it.

 

Anything less than 50' off the trail, and you only need the GPSr to tell you when to start looking for the geotrail to GZ.

[+awopcxet]

Where i live,

all caches in the forest is bushwalk caches and it have often geotrails

[+NeverSummer]

Hey all,

 

For caches that require bushwhacking, I think there needs to be an attribute that would alert geocachers for the need for such bushwhacking. As most of us know, caches are to be placed on established trails. Sometimes, they simply are not.

 

I understand that some older caches have been grandfathered in, which is fine. Whether a cache falls under this category or for any other reason, if the CO knows that there is bushwhacking required, it should be highlighted in an attribute and not just in the cache description (sometimes it's not even in there!).

 

Again, most of us know that one of the placement requirements is that caches are to be placed on established trails. As such, most geocachers have that expectation. When the CO knows that the cache is inconsistent with CURRENT placement guidelines, it should be made clearly known to fellow geocachers.

 

Your thoughts and comments please . . .

As I read the difficulty and terrain ratings, as well as use the Clayjar system of rating, you should be able to know if a cache will/won't/might include bushwhacking.

 

If the cache is a 1* Terrain, it will be handicap accessible (think wheelchair), and either hardpacked trail or pavement.

If the cache is a 1.5* Terrain, you can expect that it is off of a 1* path, and might involve longer distance or a less well-defined trail. Also, not handicap accessible.

If the cache is a 2* terrain, it will likely be off trail, and could involve some bushwhacking.

 

I'm going off of memory here...but that's the gist of it. Remember that Difficulty ratings will involve how hard the cache is to find (many variables), and Terrain deals with the "way in".

[+niraD]

Actually, according to the knowledge books article Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain, 2-star terrain should be "generally along marked trails, [with] no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth." But 3-star terrain "is likely off-trail [possibly including] some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike." And 4-star terrain "is probably off-trail [and will include] very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike."

[+NeverSummer]

Actually, according to the knowledge books article Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain, 2-star terrain should be "generally along marked trails, [with] no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth." But 3-star terrain "is likely off-trail [possibly including] some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike." And 4-star terrain "is probably off-trail [and will include] very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike."

Right. Thanks for posting the link.

I think one main part about bushwhacking that doesn't get ruled in is how it is part of the walk/hike/ride in, and/or related to the area the cache is hidden within. If either is true,the Clayjar rating system works.

 

-A "Paved pathways. Asphalt, concrete, or boardwalks."and "Not at all. There is no overgrowth at all." Gets a 1* Terrain.

-A "Paved pathways. Asphalt, concrete, or boardwalks." and "Some light overgrowth. An adult could step over or around this."nets a 2*

-A "Paved pathways. Asphalt, concrete, or boardwalks."and "Yeah, it's pretty overgrown. It's waist-high or so, or it may be thorny or have poison plants." nets a 3*

 

Before even ruling in the elevation change or trail type, it is very clear how bushwhacking come into the equation. Even paved trails can get overgrown.

 

"Well marked/defined hardpack. Well packed dirt. You could ride a standard bicycle or push a stroller on this trail without too much effort." and "Some light overgrowth. An adult could step over or around this." nets a 2*

 

But the one that hangs most ratings up is the "Other trail types. Could be gravel, sand, mud, etc. May be an animal trail. If you're riding a bike, it had better be a mountain bike." (emphasis mine)

 

If the trail isn't a paved or "maintained" hardpack trail, it would be the above "Other trail type". Even if rating as "Other trail types. Could be gravel, sand, mud, etc. May be an animal trail..." and "Not at all. There is no overgrowth at all." gets a 3* terrain rating. This would mean that a trail wandering off into the woods (be it a deer trail, or pre-teen's hidden treehouse trail) should be a 3*, and might therefore include bushwhacking.

Edited August 22, 2011 by NeverSummer

[+AmphibianTrackers]

According to that, I have been to a lot of caches that have not been graded correctly.

[+NeverSummer]

According to that, I have been to a lot of caches that have not been graded correctly.

Yup.

[+GeoGeeBee]

As most of us know, caches are to be placed on established trails.

 

Do most of us actually know this? It's the first I've heard of it.

 

There are parks where visitors are required to stay on the trails. Geocaches in those particular parks should be on the trails.

 

But National Forests have no such rules. Wildlife Management areas have no such rules. Most private land has no such rules. If it's ok with the land manager for visitors to go off-trail, then it's ok to put a geocache off-trail.