Incorrect attributes

[+user13371]

What do you do when you come across a cache that has incorrect attributes in the listing, particularly some that could get someone hurt or in trouble? Examples I can cite locally would be the "24/7" attribute caches in a park with posted hours, or "Recommended for kids" in what's actually bad location.

[+uxorious]

What do you do when you come across a cache that has incorrect attributes in the listing, particularly some that could get someone hurt or in trouble? Examples I can cite locally would be the "24/7" attribute caches in a park with posted hours, or "Recommended for kids" in what's actually bad location.

 

I do not look at the attributes, and only started putting them in because of the forum threads asking us to use them. Therefore if you see an incorrect attribute on my cache, sent me an E-mail.

 

I can't imagine why someone would post the "24/7" attribute on a cache that is in a park with posted hours, but would send them a note. (perhaps they didn't see the posted hours, or if the cache is an older one, the sign may be newer.)

 

The only other thing I might add is, if I keep seeing all this angst about what attributes are right or wrong, I will just remove them from my caches and go back to having none.

[+northernpenguin]

Email the CO, then maybe post a NM followed by email to publishing reviewer ... allowing some time to pass between each step...?

[Clan Riffster]

Email the CO, then maybe post a NM followed by email to publishing reviewer

If memory serves, the Reviewers will not take significant action against a cache based solely on inaccurate attributes. If you could convince them that the difference between the actual conditions and the posted conditions were great enough, (such as a "Scuba" attribute on a P&G), they might send an email to the owner addressing the error, but I suspect that's as far as it would go. I can't imagine a scenario in which a Reviewer would disable or archive a cache based only on an attribute issue.

 

Unless I'm confusing attributes with D/T ratings?

[+ThePetersTrio]

I'd make a note about it in my cache log and then email the CO about my concerns.

 

After that, I'd let the matter drop. It isn't my job to be the cache police.

[+northernpenguin]

Email the CO, then maybe post a NM followed by email to publishing reviewer

If memory serves, the Reviewers will not take significant action against a cache based solely on inaccurate attributes. If you could convince them that the difference between the actual conditions and the posted conditions were great enough, (such as a "Scuba" attribute on a P&G), they might send an email to the owner addressing the error, but I suspect that's as far as it would go. I can't imagine a scenario in which a Reviewer would disable or archive a cache based only on an attribute issue.

 

Unless I'm confusing attributes with D/T ratings?

 

If there is a concern like treapassing or safety due to the attribute you will probably find a more receptive reviewer

[+JL_HSTRE]

If I felt attributes are erroneous, I will note that in my log (Found or DNF). There are some I wouldn't quibble about (ex: Snowmobiles Permitted seems some kind of running joke in Florida) but stuff like dogs, bikes, kid friendly, or 24/7 inaccurately listed I would note. I also suggest Thorns and Ticks be added when I encounter them.

[+Chokecherry]

i kind of chuckle about the tick attribute and people who put it on their caches here since if you walk out the door here you're at risk for ticks.

 

I usually don't look to hard at attributes. I glance and see if it's going to cost me money to do the cache with entrance fees or what not but other than that I don't pay much attention.

[Clan Riffster]

Email the CO, then maybe post a NM followed by email to publishing reviewer

If memory serves, the Reviewers will not take significant action against a cache based solely on inaccurate attributes. If you could convince them that the difference between the actual conditions and the posted conditions were great enough, (such as a "Scuba" attribute on a P&G), they might send an email to the owner addressing the error, but I suspect that's as far as it would go. I can't imagine a scenario in which a Reviewer would disable or archive a cache based only on an attribute issue.

 

Unless I'm confusing attributes with D/T ratings?

 

If there is a concern like treapassing or safety due to the attribute you will probably find a more receptive reviewer

Could be. If I create a cache in a park, and attach a 24/7 attribute, and months later, a seeker sends the Reviewer a photo of the park entrance sign indicating the park closes at sunset, What would be the Reviewer's response? I would expect, at a minimum, an email inquiring about it. If I took no corrective action, would the Reviewer step in over an attribute? I honestly have no idea. I was hoping someone on the inside would step in and offer their thoughts.

 

As for safety concerns, I would not expect anything beyond an inquiry, as Groundspeak feels that we should be bright enough to determine for ourselves if a situation is safe or not. Maybe?

[+W7WT]

For some reason very few cache pages here in the Puget Sound Area have attributes. I have 30+ caches loaded on our GPSs that we are going to look for tomorrow and not one of them had any attributes listed. I thought maybe I was just not paying any attention to them. Dick

[AZcachemeister]

Drop a note to the CO and forget about it.

If cachers get there and can't figure out the attributes are wrong, it's Darwinism in action.

[+JeepFreak81]

I would drop a note or post something in the log. For example I have one of my caches listed as winter friendly and somebody logged that with the small amount of snow we got it made the cache a bit harder to find. I plan to go check out the cache and may pull the attribute if I think alot of snow will make it hard to get.

[knowschad]

You look like Gary Sinise in Forrest Gump.

 

Still policing caches, huh?

[+user13371]

Still policing caches, huh?

Not at all, just raising the question about what others do. I know the predictable responses (Ignore it, log a note, email the CO, email the reviewer, insult the questioner); but I'm more interested to see if there's any majority view on it.

[+baloo&bd]

Still policing caches, huh?

<snip> but I'm more interested to see if there's any majority view on it.

 

I think the majority view, one you can't find in the forums but out in the field, is the attributes are only used by a very small segment of those caching and they couldn't care less if the attributes say scubs for a mountain top cache or not.

 

The only time I have used the attributes in 9 years is when setting up a bookmark of those with the wireless attribute set to look for Chirp caches and even then did not have an expectation it would be all inclusive.

[+northernpenguin]

Could be. If I create a cache in a park, and attach a 24/7 attribute, and months later, a seeker sends the Reviewer a photo of the park entrance sign indicating the park closes at sunset, What would be the Reviewer's response? I would expect, at a minimum, an email inquiring about it. If I took no corrective action, would the Reviewer step in over an attribute? I honestly have no idea. I was hoping someone on the inside would step in and offer their thoughts.

 

As for safety concerns, I would not expect anything beyond an inquiry, as Groundspeak feels that we should be bright enough to determine for ourselves if a situation is safe or not. Maybe?

 

I suspect you'll get a bit of localization as different areas see things a little differently.

The park hours one will likely get minimal action, but then again there are areas where land owners take that sort of thing VERY seriously - and all it takes is one complaint.

 

I'm not saying the VRs will drop anvils on everyone who has a bad attribute cache, but I am saying there are times where the VR might just do that. Of course I would hope all it takes is a note to the CO to say "did you know" and it gets resolved.

I'm well aware of the fact that there are people who post bad attributes as a joke (pub event with "livestock" attribute set) or misuse of attributes ("scuba" means power trail) because someone's favourite attribute hasn't been added by TBPB.

 

There are certain attributes that should be enforced by the VRs though, particularly the access fee/time of day attributes (24/7, night, etc) as those can upset the land managers and get the cache (or multiple caches on their lands) pulled.

[+northernpenguin]

 

The only time I have used the attributes in 9 years is when setting up a bookmark of those with the wireless attribute set to look for Chirp caches and even then did not have an expectation it would be all inclusive.

 

While that may be true for you, or for caches in your area that's not true of everyone.

Around these parts we make extensive use of the attributes - particularly for night caches, UV required, winter fiendly friendly ....

[+baloo&bd]

While that may be true for you, or for caches in your area that's not true of everyone.

Around these parts we make extensive use of the attributes - particularly for night caches, UV required, winter fiendly friendly ....

 

Not sure where I said it was true for everyone?

 

Using similar "selective quoting" techniques, I said;

 

I think the majority view, one you can't find in the forums but out in the field, is the attributes are only used by a very small segment of those caching <snip>

Edited November 28, 2011 by baloo&bd

[knowschad]

Still policing caches, huh?

Not at all, just raising the question about what others do. I know the predictable responses (Ignore it, log a note, email the CO, email the reviewer, insult the questioner); but I'm more interested to see if there's any majority view on it.

 

Examples I can cite locally would be the "24/7" attribute caches in a park with posted hours, or "Recommended for kids" in what's actually bad location.

Well, to be honest, the examples that you cited are what caused me to make that assumption. You didn't ask about the relatively benign attributes like maybe the bicycles or dogs allowed attributes.

 

But to answer your question, around here, the winter-friendly (snowflake, Available during winter) attribute is just about the only one anybody really cares about, and that, only about 8 months out of the year. We are much more likely to grumble about what we feel are misrated D&T ratings. Attributes are a nicety. Appreciate them when they help, ignore them when they don't.

[+northernpenguin]

While that may be true for you, or for caches in your area that's not true of everyone.

Around these parts we make extensive use of the attributes - particularly for night caches, UV required, winter fiendly friendly ....

 

Not sure where I said it was true for everyone?

 

Using similar "selective quoting" techniques, I said;

 

I think the majority view, one you can't find in the forums but out in the field, is the attributes are only used by a very small segment of those caching <snip>

 

The "selective quote" was more of a space saver. I've been on plenty of forums where every thread is quoted in it's entirety and it gets painful to read around post #150. No offence intended.

 

What I was saying is that your "majority view" is based on where you cache. Around here a lot of people use the attributes. Unless we are representing that entire "very small segment of those caching".

Note, I don't include those that have found less than 10 caches with their smartphone before they abandon the hobby as a "cacher", so that may be skewing my viewpoint.

[+L0ne.R]

Still policing caches, huh?

<snip> but I'm more interested to see if there's any majority view on it.

 

I think the majority view, one you can't find in the forums but out in the field, is the attributes are only used by a very small segment of those caching and they couldn't care less if the attributes say scubs for a mountain top cache or not.

 

The only time I have used the attributes in 9 years is when setting up a bookmark of those with the wireless attribute set to look for Chirp caches and even then did not have an expectation it would be all inclusive.

 

Interesting. I use them all the time.I mostly use the exclude section. For regular everyday caching I tend to exclude: Fee, Dogs Not Allowed, Night Cache, Recommended at Night, >10kms, Dangerous Area, May Require Wading, May Require Swimming, Tree Climbing, Front Yard. If I got to a cache and it was, for instance, in someone's front yard and/or up a tree I would mention in my log that the owner might consider using the appropriate attribute in order to get the right audience for their cache.

[+L0ne.R]

The only time I have used the attributes in 9 years is when setting up a bookmark of those with the wireless attribute set to look for Chirp caches and even then did not have an expectation it would be all inclusive.

 

While that may be true for you, or for caches in your area that's not true of everyone.

Around these parts we make extensive use of the attributes - particularly for night caches, UV required, winter fiendly friendly ....

 

Definitely...in the winter I set a PQ for caches that use the Winter Friendly attribute. I have gone over all of our cache hides to make sure they have appropriate and useful attributes. Why not use them? It'll help make the experience better for finders.

[+user13371]

Well, to be honest, the examples that you cited are what caused me to make that assumption.

The examples I mentioned were just ones that come to mind as potentially troublesome. Some you just wouldn't care about.

[knowschad]

Well, to be honest, the examples that you cited are what caused me to make that assumption.

The examples I mentioned were just ones that come to mind as potentially troublesome. Some you just wouldn't care about.

 

That was my point, exactly. As potentially troublesome as a cache hidden near a no trespassing sign.

[+StarBrand]

Still policing caches, huh?

<snip> but I'm more interested to see if there's any majority view on it.

 

I think the majority view, one you can't find in the forums but out in the field, is the attributes are only used by a very small segment of those caching and they couldn't care less if the attributes say scubs for a mountain top cache or not.

 

The only time I have used the attributes in 9 years is when setting up a bookmark of those with the wireless attribute set to look for Chirp caches and even then did not have an expectation it would be all inclusive.

 

Interesting. I use them all the time.I mostly use the exclude section. For regular everyday caching I tend to exclude: Fee, Dogs Not Allowed, Night Cache, Recommended at Night, >10kms, Dangerous Area, May Require Wading, May Require Swimming, Tree Climbing, Front Yard. If I got to a cache and it was, for instance, in someone's front yard and/or up a tree I would mention in my log that the owner might consider using the appropriate attribute in order to get the right audience for their cache.

I find the attributes are so often overused or erroneous that i cannot rely on them - so I tend to totally ignore them.

[+user13371]

...That was my point, exactly...

Sorry, I'm not getting your point at all. Is raising a question in the forum about cache descriptions & listing practices a problem? I haven't proposed a course of action at all; just posed the question to see what other think. Why does this bother you?

Edited November 28, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[knowschad]

...That was my point, exactly...

Sorry, I'm not getting your point at all. Is raising a question in the forum about cache descriptions & listing practices a problem? I haven't proposed a course of action at all; just posed the question to see what other think. Why does this bother you?

 

Maybe it won't bother me at all. I'm just getting a vague sense of deja vu. I trust that you will prove me wrong, though.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not saying the VRs will drop anvils on everyone who has a bad attribute cache, but I am saying there are times where the VR might just do that.

You may be right. I will be the first to admit that just because I haven't seen something occur, doesn't mean it doesn't occur. I would like to hear a Reviewer's thoughts on this, just to satisfy my curiosity. Keystone? <knock-knock> (Is this thing on?)

[+Harry Dolphin]

What do you do when you come across a cache that has incorrect attributes in the listing, particularly some that could get someone hurt or in trouble? Examples I can cite locally would be the "24/7" attribute caches in a park with posted hours, or "Recommended for kids" in what's actually bad location.

 

Okay, you're actually looking for a serious answer on something as silly as attributes?

I will agree that deliberate lying is not good: 24/7 for park with restricted hours. "Recommended for kids" is up to the parents to decide when it is not safe for their kids. How are you defining 'bad location'?

The only use I make of attributes in my downloads is to exclude 'chirp' caches.

Snowmobiles not permitted in Florida is truthful, if inane. But then, I've been known to use 'no snowmobiling' on some of my urban caches. As well as 'camping not permitted'. But I also use 'livestock' because a few years ago, a herd of goats escaped from a butcher shop, and were running up and down Park Avenue in West New York. Hey! You never know when that might happen again! Also, since there is no 'bear' attribute, I use 'livestock' (meaning dangerous, evil animal) on my caches in bear territory (Hmm.. I seem to have a lot of those...) The snake just doesn't do it.

I will agree that attributes that are deliberately false and might get people in trouble are a bad idea. "24/7" when it is not. "Camping permitted" when it is not. "Dogs permitted" when they are not. I do not know of a mechanism in place to rectify such problems. Perhaps reviewers should be able to take such actions on those. But that does not seem to be in place. Most of the others will not get any sensible person in trouble. Semantic as to what 'recommended for children' entails. Hey! Watch your kids! Nope. Campfires are not permitted in New York City!

[+niraD]

When I've found caches that were inaccurately identified in some way, I've merely mentioned the issue in my log, including a link to a reference source as appropriate. Perhaps something like this:

 

The "Available at All Times" attribute is inappropriate, given that the park is closed between 10pm and dawn.

 

I don't understand why this is listed as a "small", since a 35mm film canister is a definitive "micro" container.

[+L0ne.R]

When I've found caches that were inaccurately identified in some way, I've merely mentioned the issue in my log, including a link to a reference source as appropriate. Perhaps something like this:

 

The "Available at All Times" attribute is inappropriate, given that the park is closed between 10pm and dawn.

 

I don't understand why this is listed as a "small", since a 35mm film canister is a definitive "micro" container.

 

+1

[+Stargazer22]

I don't generally do anything about what I perceive as an incorrect attribute for a cache. My interpretation of things could be just as incorrect as the COs. The example you give of the 24/7 for a cache in an area with posted hours would be more likely to get a response from me with a very polite email to the CO stating that I saw signs at the area with posted hours. I would never contact a CO about their cache if I did not personally go to the cache myself and form my own opinion. I certainly would not bring up cache listings I had not visited to "police" them.

 

As far as your other example, it is a judgement call as to what is safe and what is not. Where kids are concerned I expect their parents to decide what is safe for them and what is not. When they get to the cache site if they don't feel it's an appropriate environment for their children, they should leave regardless of what attributes the CO has on the cache page. This can vary depending on specific parents and their progeny. Something like that is a judgment call that the parent should make, not me.

 

It's not so black-and-white when judgment is involved. What some people see as acceptable might not agree with the beliefs of others. In those cases I'm sure not going to act as cop, judge, and jury. Especially not about what attributes are on a cache page. I don't feel the need to control the actions of others that much.

[+northernpenguin]

I'm reading this thread and I'm starting to wonder....

 

Would people react the same to an incorrect attribute vs the same info in the listing of the cache.

 

For example, a cache in a cemetery that closes at night with the 24/7 attribute set vs a similar cache but instead of that being an attribute the listing erroneously states that the cemetery is "always open" and night caching is welcome.

 

Would THAT attract more attention or would we all be happy to just ignore that too.

The way I see it an inaccuracy is an inaccuracy whether it's a little used feature or not.

[+Gan Dalf]

I know of a puzzle cache that used the attributes for the puzzle itself. While one or two of them might have been accurate for the hide, that was just a coincidence, most of them had nothing to do with the hide at all.

 

While I almost always use attrbutes when placing a cache I rarely if ever look at them. I myself will use a dog or a bike attribute if I see a sign that says they are welcome or a no dogs or no bikes attribute If I see a sign saying the opposite. The main reason I do this is to protect my listing in case some bozo doesn't bother reading signs.

 

I think many wheelchair cachers look for that attrbute and many families use the kid icon to look for appropriate cahes to do with theri young children. That said, a cache was recently placed locally by someone calling themselves a family. On the cache page the description talks about how they cache often with their 3 year old and what a great little finder he is. They put the kid friendly attribute on their cache page. The cache they placed is in s parking lot, next to an electrical box with two rat bait boxes at the base of it. One of the first finders found a used syringe laying near the cache and there is gang grafitti all over the walls of a nearby building. Kinda makes you wonder...

[knowschad]

My handheld GPS doesn't display attributes, and neither does the Nuvi that I use for paperless caching. Since 99% of my caching is done via pocket queries, the only time I even look at attributes is when I'm still at home, or after I get home and am logging my finds/dnfs. So, attributes play a very small part in my caching.