[Feature] Primary Attribute of Cache Placement

[+GrayFinders2]

Not readily seeing this scenario already submitted in the forums, but may have missed it.

 

There has been extensive debate regarding quality vs quantity of caches and the reasons why cachers hunt/hide caches. Quality cachers gripes generally narrow down to the inability to readily identify the unique types of caches they are seeking or getting their own caches to stand out from the masses. Numbers cachers generally don’t want additional placement restrictions or burdens to slow down cache placements.

 

My suggestion below would build on the existing attribute system. This would add one question to the cache reporting form or to the attribute form, with a generic default for those who don’t want to bother with the system. This would allow the CO to declare a primary attribute indicating why they chose this location to place a cache and allow seekers to narrow down their search list to the types of sites/caches they are looking for. Based on the “When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – (Briansnat) perspective, I’d prefer it to be on the cache reporting page to encourage cachers to more actively think about their placement location.

 

The question I would add is – “I want to bring other cachers to the center of this 528 foot circle because it is” – followed by the dropdown list below

• a Unique scenic view*

• Historically significant

• a Physical challenge to get here

• Critical to my puzzle solution

• Critical to the cache name/theme

• Kid friendly*

• Educational

• Culturally significant

• a Quickie/Park-n-grab*

• In an area that needs more caches (just say so. Locals may take time to find it, but travelers through the area may opt to skip this in favor of a more unique site)

• Undeclared/other (suggest explaining on cache page)

 

Asterisked selections above are the only reasons that have established attribute symbols. The default would be “undeclared”, so that the process won’t hold up CO’s who are in a hurry and don’t want to take this time consuming extra step during the submission process, or for CO’s who don’t want their cache relegated to a specific box. Existing caches would get an “undeclared” until the CO updates it. Additional dropdown choices could be added if other placement reasons are noted.

 

This primary attribute should show up on the cache page as the first attribute, in a different color than black. It be searchable in the PQs separately from the overall attributes. Caches should be distinguishable (ie color coded) and selectable (shutting off the ones you’re not interested in, the way cache type currently is) on the mapping.

 

Incorporating these additional attributes into the existing attribute selections would not be much help. Running a PQ in my area specifically including the “scenic” attribute yields numerous caches for which it would be a stretch to consider scenic at all, let alone be the primary reason for going there.

[+L0ne.R]

The question I would add is – "I want to bring other cachers to the center of this 528 foot circle because it is" – followed by the dropdown list below

• a Unique scenic view*

• Historically significant

• a Physical challenge to get here

• Critical to my puzzle solution

• Critical to the cache name/theme

• Kid friendly*

• Educational

• Culturally significant

• a Quickie/Park-n-grab*

• In an area that needs more caches (just say so. Locals may take time to find it, but travelers through the area may opt to skip this in favor of a more unique site)

• Undeclared/other (suggest explaining on cache page)

 

 

Nice to see someone else ask for this feature on the submission form. (I mentioned it a couple of times in the forum but got a 'thumbs down' reaction).

 

A drop menu would at least make people consider that there are some good reasons to hide a cache besides 'to get a smiley'. And if the CO is honest and chooses the 'to get a smiley' it will help them attract the right type of audience for their cache - the every-cache-is-a-good-cache crowd. It would filter out grumbly types like me that might mention the 'meh' factor of the cache in their online log.

[+MAntunes]

Thumbs up for this one. Having CO saying the primary reason why the cache was placed and letting visitors filtering cache listings by this attribute, would help seekers to have the type of geocaching experience that most suits their own preferences.

 

There are too many geocaches nowadays (my personal opinion) and choosing the right ones for me, sometimes takes plenty of the time available to go out finding caches.

[I!]

Let me try.

 

"I want to bring other cachers to the center of this 528 foot circle because it is ..."

• Hide #1: overlooking a beautiful valley;
  
• #2: a pretty good view and a nice walk from #1;
  
• #3-6: stopping points on the generally scenic circuit through caches #1-6;
  
• #7: a fun puzzle with a secluded lookout at the final location;
  
• #8-10: scenic places you might not have visited on this popular hill;
  
• #11,12: stopping points on a revamped version of that circuit through caches #1-6;
  
• #13: educational and has great views at the top;
  
• #14: a fun puzzle with good views on both approaches and a special final location.

 

I wouldn't feel happy advertising my cache by just one primary reason to visit. So, no thanks.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Neat idea; I like it.

[+sbeelis]

Add another reason:

- because "it's a nice area" (some of those exist even without scenic views)

[+GrayFinders2]

I wouldn't feel happy advertising my cache by just one primary reason to visit.

 

Most puzzle caches could be adapted to any location that you want. You just need to adjust the clues. We have three listed as “puzzles” but they are really just unknowns, where you need to get clues at the scenic/historic point of interest we wanted you to get to in the first place. Those points are just not appropriate for hiding the final container. The puzzle is the means, not the end, and certainly not the focus of our caches.

 

Yours appear to be the same way, with the focus on scenic locations. But I also included an option for those who don’t want their caches rigidly categorized. I also suggested that that be the default choice, placing the additional effort on those of us who do want to categorize ours.

[+GrayFinders2]

Add another reason:

- because "it's a nice area" (some of those exist even without scenic views)

 

Most CO’s would consider their own cache placements to be in “nice” spots. But what characteristic makes it nice – a scenic spot, an out of the way corner of the parking lot away from muggles, etc. So “nice” would provide the same meaningless results as a single overall rating system.

 

We have a cache on a 70 mile local trail. Most of the trail is nice, but that doesn’t warrant placing 701 caches (assuming it was dead straight). We selected a site near a single unique rock formation. It’s not national park level scenery, but we would list it as scenic. Other cachers have selected other specific locations along the same trail – some more, some less scenic. Even a simple walk through a park without an endless view could be considered scenic if that's why you placed it.

[+niraD]

A cache in a quiet rose garden that is open to the public may not have a "scenic view", but it is certainly in "a nice area". A cache in a cathedral grove in a redwood forest may not have a "scenic view" either, but it is certainly in "a nice area".

 

If you're expecting the "scenic view" category to include such locations, then I recommend choosing a different phrase to describe the category. For some of us, the phrase "scenic view" implies that you can see something in the distance; it doesn't really apply to something that is close, especially when the things that are close obscure your view of anything distant.

[+sbeelis]

A cache in a quiet rose garden that is open to the public may not have a "scenic view", but it is certainly in "a nice area". A cache in a cathedral grove in a redwood forest may not have a "scenic view" either, but it is certainly in "a nice area".

 

If you're expecting the "scenic view" category to include such locations, then I recommend choosing a different phrase to describe the category. For some of us, the phrase "scenic view" implies that you can see something in the distance; it doesn't really apply to something that is close, especially when the things that are close obscure your view of anything distant.

Thank you, you phrased that much better than I could have done.