Attributes

[+L0ne.R]

Since we're getting closer to Christmas, if Groundspeak would gift us with new attributes what would your wish be?

 

I would like:

• a challenge attribute
• a snow-n-ice-friendly attribute (get rid of the available during winter attribute)
• 2 stamp attributes for letterbox hybrids - one for commercial stamps, one for handcarved stamps

[+narcissa]

A powertrail attribute.

[+Harry Dolphin]

A cemetery attribute, so I can remove them all from my GPX files.

[+L0ne.R]

A cemetery attribute, so I can remove them all from my GPX files.

 

Oooooo, yes. I would love that for the opposite reason.

[+narcissa]

A cemetery attribute, so I can remove them all from my GPX files.

 

Oooooo, yes. I would love that for the opposite reason.

 

Yeah, same here. Geocaching has taken us to many really cool pioneer cemeteries in particular.

[+frinklabs]

A powertrail attribute.

 

I would like that, along with its negative option version so people know it is a series with non-fungible logs and containers:

 

Maybe a throwdowns ok/no throwdowns?

 

It would also be cool to have a Needs CITO log type that would add an attribute:

 

EDIT: Grammar

Edited November 12, 2014 by frinklabs

[+L0ne.R]

A powertrail attribute.

 

Someone just started a thread about PWT attributes. I agree a PWT attribute would be extremely useful.

Edited November 12, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+narcissa]

A powertrail attribute.

 

I would like that, along with its negative option version so people know it is a series with non-fungible logs and containers:

 

Maybe a throwdowns ok/no throwdowns?

 

It would also be cool to have a Needs CITO log type that would add an attribute:

 

EDIT: Grammar

 

I love these suggestions. Awesome.

[+TriciaG]

Needs CITO? Why is the CO responsible for CITO'ing? How does the attribute get removed?

 

If a spot needs CITO, host a CITO event.

[+frinklabs]

Needs CITO? Why is the CO responsible for CITO'ing? How does the attribute get removed?

 

If a spot needs CITO, host a CITO event.

 

Hmmm - good point. I wouldn't want the CO to think they're responsible for that; it was more meant to warn to subsequent finders that they might have to sift a midden to find the cache.

 

Maybe an associated user-loggable Performed CITO could clear it?

[+cerberus1]

Needs CITO? Why is the CO responsible for CITO'ing? How does the attribute get removed?

 

If a spot needs CITO, host a CITO event.

+1

- And I thought "be stealthy" was bad...

"This area's horrible, but I put a cache here anyway" ?

[+Mudfrog]

A powertrail attribute.

 

Oh yesssssss!

[+niraD]

I think challenge caches are distinct enough to deserve their own type, rather than just an attribute.

 

I don't see how replacing the available during winter attribute with a snow-n-ice-friendly attribute would improve anything, but I don't have much experience geocaching in areas with snow and ice.

 

And I certainly don't see Groundspeak creating two stamp attributes for LBH caches. Maybe one, but not two. But I'm not a letterboxer either.

 

But I like the idea of a power trail/numbers run trail attribute and a cemetery attribute.

[+crb11]

"Near water" would be a useful to one to add to the other risk-based attributes.

[+The Leprechauns]

• 2 stamp attributes for letterbox hybrids - one for commercial stamps, one for handcarved stamps

The only reason for the existence of the letterbox hybrid cache type is because Jeremy was worried that people would take the stamp as a trade item. He wanted an easy way to distinguish caches that were also letterboxes. But, attributes didn't exist then.

 

So, if the requested attributes are added, we could do away with the oft-misunderstood letterbox hybrid cache types.

 

A traditional cache with a letterboxing stamp is a letterbox hybrid today; it can be changed to a traditional with a letterbox attribute.

A multicache with a letterboxing stamp is a letterbox hybrid today; it can be changed to a multicache with a letterbox attribute.

A mystery cache with a letterboxing stamp is a letterbox hybrid today; it can be changed to a mystery cache with a letterbox attribute.

 

Me? I'm still holding out for the "hamster-friendly" cache attribute. With caches getting smaller and smaller, the LRPL is at an all-time high. This is disconcerting.

[+L0ne.R]

• 2 stamp attributes for letterbox hybrids - one for commercial stamps, one for handcarved stamps

The only reason for the existence of the letterbox hybrid cache type is because Jeremy was worried that people would take the stamp as a trade item. He wanted an easy way to distinguish caches that were also letterboxes. But, attributes didn't exist then.

 

So, if the requested attributes are added, we could do away with the oft-misunderstood letterbox hybrid cache types.

 

A traditional cache with a letterboxing stamp is a letterbox hybrid today; it can be changed to a traditional with a letterbox attribute.

A multicache with a letterboxing stamp is a letterbox hybrid today; it can be changed to a multicache with a letterbox attribute.

A mystery cache with a letterboxing stamp is a letterbox hybrid today; it can be changed to a mystery cache with a letterbox attribute.

 

 

Exactly. Thanks for fluffing out the reason why I think a stamp attribute would be useful. Grandfathering LBH cache type would also be the part of the evolution. Directional clue types of caches already fit into the Mystery/Puzzle/catch-all cache type. Those who care about stamps could filter by stamp attribute. Those who care about personalized one-of-a-kind stamps could filter down further. But I would be content with one stamp attribute.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I don't see how replacing the available during winter attribute with a snow-n-ice-friendly attribute would improve anything, but I don't have much experience geocaching in areas with snow and ice.

 

 

See discussion: Winter attribute - 'Lately I've noticed that most of the caches I've found with the winter-friendly icon are not winter-friendly. They are on the ground. Not hanging above the snow line or not placed in a protected spot, which won't get caked in ice.'

Many cachers think the 'Available in Winter' means the park or location is open in the winter. A snow-ice-friendly attribute would be more precise.

[+Mudfrog]

"Near water" would be a useful to one to add to the other risk-based attributes.

 

Not sure i understand how an attribute like this would be useful.

[+TriciaG]

The stamp/letterbox attribute would then open up the caches for intro app users to find, wouldn't it? If they were traditional letterboxes, that is, rather than mysteries or whatever.

 

Seems like the LBH cache type helps prevent those who don't know anything from looking for them and taking the stamp as swag.

 

- I am all for the power trail attribute.

- Cemetery could be combined with church micro (in the UK, mostly?) and used as one, all-inclusive, church-and-cemetery cache attribute.

- I'd love a challenge attribute or new cache type.

[+narcissa]

 

- Cemetery could be combined with church micro (in the UK, mostly?) and used as one, all-inclusive, church-and-cemetery cache attribute.

 

 

Why?

[+MountainWoods]

I agree. Churches and cemeteries are completely distinctive things that have very few characteristics in common. If you are thinking that these are things that you should be quiet around, why not combine them with libraries and hospitals?!? (And call it a "Be Quiet Near" attribute!)

 

A GC near a church is a GC near a church, and a GC in a cemetery is a GC in a cemetery.

[+L0ne.R]

"Near water" would be a useful to one to add to the other risk-based attributes.

 

Not sure i understand how an attribute like this would be useful.

 

I think I understand....I like cache experiences near bodies of water. A pretty stream, a pond, a lake, the ocean. I'd like to filter for caches near scenic water locations.

Problem might be that some cache owners might consider a nearby ditch full of water worthy of a "near water" attribute.

[+TriciaG]

 

- Cemetery could be combined with church micro (in the UK, mostly?) and used as one, all-inclusive, church-and-cemetery cache attribute.

 

 

Why?

Why? Why not?

 

UK cachers have requested a church micro attribute for a long time now - or at least, I've seen lots of threads asking how to filter them out to find them. Why not combine it with the cemetery cache attribute? I suppose GS could make one for each, but I'm going for "a bird in the hand" rather than for asking too much.

 

EDIT: I guess I figured most cemeteries were near churches, especially the old ones. If they are more separate, then never mind - two attributes.

Edited November 13, 2014 by TriciaG

[+crb11]

"Near water" would be a useful to one to add to the other risk-based attributes.

 

Not sure i understand how an attribute like this would be useful.

 

I was thinking of "risk of falling into water". Mainly aimed at people caching with small children or dogs who would need keeping an eye on in case they fell in. Or those who might not be so steady on their feet.

Edited November 13, 2014 by crb11

[+L0ne.R]

"Near water" would be a useful to one to add to the other risk-based attributes.

 

Not sure i understand how an attribute like this would be useful.

 

I was thinking of "risk of falling into water". Mainly aimed at people caching with small children or dogs who would need keeping an eye on in case they fell in. Or those who might not be so steady on their feet.

 

The Dangerous Area attribute might work for areas where there is a danger of slipping and falling into water.

[+cerberus1]

"Near water" would be a useful to one to add to the other risk-based attributes.

 

Not sure i understand how an attribute like this would be useful.

 

I was thinking of "risk of falling into water". Mainly aimed at people caching with small children or dogs who would need keeping an eye on in case they fell in. Or those who might not be so steady on their feet.

 

The Dangerous Area attribute might work for areas where there is a danger of slipping and falling into water.

True.

- But the D/T of the hide should already take care of many situations similar.

Something as simple as a mention on the cache page could take care of that too.

What amount of hand-holding is needed to apply common sense ?

[+MountainWoods]

 

- Cemetery could be combined with church micro (in the UK, mostly?) and used as one, all-inclusive, church-and-cemetery cache attribute.

 

 

Why?

Why? Why not?

 

UK cachers have requested a church micro attribute for a long time now - or at least, I've seen lots of threads asking how to filter them out to find them. Why not combine it with the cemetery cache attribute? I suppose GS could make one for each, but I'm going for "a bird in the hand" rather than for asking too much.

 

EDIT: I guess I figured most cemeteries were near churches, especially the old ones. If they are more separate, then never mind - two attributes.

That must be a regional thing. In the US, there are more cemeteries that are not graveyards (i.e. churchyard cemeteries) than those that are. I know because I Waymark both of them. Of the 172 cemeteries that I've Waymarked, only 34 of them were at churches.

[+cheech gang]

Many churches have cemeteries, many cemeteries have no churches.

[+Ambrosia]

Many churches have cemeteries, many cemeteries have no churches.

Well, we don't have any churches with cemeteries around here. It's very regional.

[+Manville Possum]

Many churches have cemeteries, many cemeteries have no churches.

Well, we don't have any churches with cemeteries around here. It's very regional.

We have quite a few churchyard cemeteries, some very old ones. That is one of the Waymarking categorys that I enjoy, churchyard cemeteries.

 

If I could request a new attribute it would be power trails. I hates em' and would love a way to filter them out of PQ's.

[+GrateBear]

A cemetery attribute, so I can remove them all from my GPX files.

 

Oooooo, yes. I would love that for the opposite reason.

 

Yeah, same here. Geocaching has taken us to many really cool pioneer cemeteries in particular.

Another "same here". The best one was a virtual, GCHZZ2, in LA. Found the answer, then started looking around the rest of the cemetery. Drove along a bit and WHOA, there's Marilyn Monroe's grave! Kept looking--Merv Griffin, Don Knotts, Rodney Dangerfield, Farrah Fawcett and many more. It was fabulous and so interesting. Probably the best find ever. Never would have seen it if not for geocaching.

[+niraD]

Well, we don't have any churches with cemeteries around here. It's very regional.

It may also depend on the era in which the church/cemetery was established. The only churches with cemeteries (or cemeteries with churches) that I can think of are the old Spanish missions. Other than that, even the historic (i.e., no longer active) cemeteries I've visited have been stand-alone cemeteries, not part of any church grounds.

[+Ambrosia]

Well, we don't have any churches with cemeteries around here. It's very regional.

It may also depend on the era in which the church/cemetery was established. The only churches with cemeteries (or cemeteries with churches) that I can think of are the old Spanish missions. Other than that, even the historic (i.e., no longer active) cemeteries I've visited have been stand-alone cemeteries, not part of any church grounds.

We did have one of those (in the next town over), a Mission that was established in the mid 1800's, to bring the natives to the church. The priest was one of the first settlers in the area. The mission building is gone (although it wasn't right next to the cemetery), but the cemetery is still there and is now maintained by the Colville Indian Reservation, and is still used by them.

 

I have seen some churches in my travels around the U.S. that still have cemeteries in the church yards. Although, I'm not sure if they're active, probably just because there's no more room in a lot of them!

[+Millsboy]

With the new tech of smart phones and the ever shrinking size of nanos. I would recommend a QR Code reader attribute.

 

I will be adding a QR code to all my future caches.

 

It could also be used as a "stash note" for the outside of bison tubes, as coordinate clues for multi's and anything else you can probably think of.

 

I am not sure if this was suggested already since you are unable to search for two character strings in this forum.

 

Until the powers that be decide it is worthy I guess I will just be adding the use of a QR code reader in the description.

[+cerberus1]

With the new tech of smart phones and the ever shrinking size of nanos. I would recommend a QR Code reader attribute.

 

I will be adding a QR code to all my future caches.

 

It could also be used as a "stash note" for the outside of bison tubes, as coordinate clues for multi's and anything else you can probably think of.

 

I am not sure if this was suggested already since you are unable to search for two character strings in this forum.

 

Until the powers that be decide it is worthy I guess I will just be adding the use of a QR code reader in the description.

What will your qr code do?

All caches (other than Virtual, Earthcaches and Webcams) must have a log.

We've done multis with a qr code as a stage, but not as the log.

[+Manville Possum]

With the new tech of smart phones and the ever shrinking size of nanos. I would recommend a QR Code reader attribute.

 

I will be adding a QR code to all my future caches.

 

It could also be used as a "stash note" for the outside of bison tubes, as coordinate clues for multi's and anything else you can probably think of.

 

I am not sure if this was suggested already since you are unable to search for two character strings in this forum.

 

Until the powers that be decide it is worthy I guess I will just be adding the use of a QR code reader in the description.

What will your qr code do?

All caches (other than Virtual, Earthcaches and Webcams) must have a log.

We've done multis with a qr code as a stage, but not as the log.

Five years ago when I first saw the QR codes on another geocaching site that is exactly what I thought, QR codes and no containers or logs. Not my idea of a geocache, then that awful other game showed up.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, we don't have any churches with cemeteries around here. It's very regional.

It may also depend on the era in which the church/cemetery was established. The only churches with cemeteries (or cemeteries with churches) that I can think of are the old Spanish missions. Other than that, even the historic (i.e., no longer active) cemeteries I've visited have been stand-alone cemeteries, not part of any church grounds.

 

The majority of old churches in the east all have cemeteries, and nearly all of the old cemeteries that I have visited which don't currently have churches, did originally have them at one time.

[+PlantAKiss]

"Near electrical device" attribute.

[+Ambrosia]

Well, we don't have any churches with cemeteries around here. It's very regional.

It may also depend on the era in which the church/cemetery was established. The only churches with cemeteries (or cemeteries with churches) that I can think of are the old Spanish missions. Other than that, even the historic (i.e., no longer active) cemeteries I've visited have been stand-alone cemeteries, not part of any church grounds.

 

The majority of old churches in the east all have cemeteries, and nearly all of the old cemeteries that I have visited which don't currently have churches, did originally have them at one time.

I'm curious, do you know how old the churches are, in general?

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, we don't have any churches with cemeteries around here. It's very regional.

It may also depend on the era in which the church/cemetery was established. The only churches with cemeteries (or cemeteries with churches) that I can think of are the old Spanish missions. Other than that, even the historic (i.e., no longer active) cemeteries I've visited have been stand-alone cemeteries, not part of any church grounds.

 

The majority of old churches in the east all have cemeteries, and nearly all of the old cemeteries that I have visited which don't currently have churches, did originally have them at one time.

I'm curious, do you know how old the churches are, in general?

I'd say 1800s to early 1900s. For example the Colestown cemetery in Cherry Hill does not have a church, but there is a space where one was up until the 1800s. The oldest stones are clustered around the spot. I hid this cache in a cemetery located pretty far in the woods. The nearby homeowner told me there used to be a church up there too, but it's long gone. The graves are from 1760s to 1910. Years ago every cemetery was either near a church, or a family plot. The family plots I've found in rural Georgia have headstones and footstones, as well as a raised berm of dirt in between. If it was on the top of a hill there likely was a church there at one time, as they tended to place the churches in the highest spot.

[+-CJ-]

I was thinking about a CCTV camera attribute. To me it's different from the stealth attribute. Stealth attribute means that there are high chances of my actions being noticed by muggles and it's up to me to attract less/no attention (e.g. choose another time for my visit). On the other hand, some areas are constantly and purposely watched (and my actions could even be recorded).

[+baloo&bd]

 

Maybe a throwdowns ok/no throwdowns?

 

 

Since throwdowns are never acceptable, can't see a need for this one.

[+frinklabs]

 

Maybe a throwdowns ok/no throwdowns?

 

 

Since throwdowns are never acceptable, can't see a need for this one.

 

For context, I generated those attribute graphics for inclusion in a thread that had points for and against throwdowns:

 

Can a "bad" cacher be reported?

 

In that thread, they link to the official Groundspeak position on throwdowns:

 

Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

The official position suggests that owner-permitted throwdowns are acceptable. One good way to clarify the owner's stance on this matter, one way or the other, would be with the suggested attribute.

[+baloo&bd]

 

Maybe a throwdowns ok/no throwdowns?

 

 

Since throwdowns are never acceptable, can't see a need for this one.

 

For context, I generated those attribute graphics for inclusion in a thread that had points for and against throwdowns:

 

Can a "bad" cacher be reported?

 

In that thread, they link to the official Groundspeak position on throwdowns:

 

Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

The official position suggests that owner-permitted throwdowns are acceptable. One good way to clarify the owner's stance on this matter, one way or the other, would be with the suggested attribute.

 

Wow, you sure took creative license with that interpretation, especially with that last paragraph you wrote.

[+frinklabs]

 

Maybe a throwdowns ok/no throwdowns?

 

 

Since throwdowns are never acceptable, can't see a need for this one.

 

For context, I generated those attribute graphics for inclusion in a thread that had points for and against throwdowns:

 

Can a "bad" cacher be reported?

 

In that thread, they link to the official Groundspeak position on throwdowns:

 

Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

The official position suggests that owner-permitted throwdowns are acceptable. One good way to clarify the owner's stance on this matter, one way or the other, would be with the suggested attribute.

 

Wow, you sure took creative license with that interpretation, especially with that last paragraph you wrote.

 

Thanks! Creativity has never been my strong suit.

 

Meanwhile, here is the text of the linked-to Groundspeak position (the bolding is mine):

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

I am not sure how else to interpret it.

 

If it was supposed suggest that throwdowns are "never acceptable" then then I would have expected the first bolded bit to read Geocaches should never be replaced

 

And the second bolded bit would probably need to read In these cases, it is the responsibility of the geocache owner to delete finds of the throwdown

 

For the record, to clarify my own position on the matter, I would have no problem if the guidelines were re-written that way. Production of the throwdown yes/no attribute graphics did, and does not constitute my endorsement of the practice. If it existed, all my caches would have the No Throwdown attribute set.

[+baloo&bd]

 

Maybe a throwdowns ok/no throwdowns?

 

 

Since throwdowns are never acceptable, can't see a need for this one.

 

For context, I generated those attribute graphics for inclusion in a thread that had points for and against throwdowns:

 

Can a "bad" cacher be reported?

 

In that thread, they link to the official Groundspeak position on throwdowns:

 

Throwdowns - How to handle them

 

The official position suggests that owner-permitted throwdowns are acceptable. One good way to clarify the owner's stance on this matter, one way or the other, would be with the suggested attribute.

 

Wow, you sure took creative license with that interpretation, especially with that last paragraph you wrote.

 

Thanks! Creativity has never been my strong suit.

 

Meanwhile, here is the text of the linked-to Groundspeak position (the bolding is mine):

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

I am not sure how else to interpret it.

 

If it was supposed suggest that throwdowns are "never acceptable" then then I would have expected the first bolded bit to read Geocaches should never be replaced

 

And the second bolded bit would probably need to read In these cases, it is the responsibility of the geocache owner to delete finds of the throwdown

 

For the record, to clarify my own position on the matter, I would have no problem if the guidelines were re-written that way. Production of the throwdown yes/no attribute graphics did, and does not constitute my endorsement of the practice. If it existed, all my caches would have the No Throwdown attribute set.

 

Even with bolding, I can't see where they say throwdowns are acceptable. In fact, the guideline states it is unacceptable. Replacing a cache with the owners permission is not a throwdown. "Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find". The part you bolded, in fact the whole guideline, is how to deal with subsequent finders after someone was inconsiderate enough to do a throwdown. It suggests allowing those finds because the new finder has no way of knowing it was a throwdown.

 

Now, we return you to your thread already in progress.