Tourist Friendly Attribute - What does that mean to you?

[+VAVAPAM 12]

I'm setting up a new mystery cache in a town where the main tourists are either just passing through or at a major NASCAR (motor speedway) event.

No lovely vistas, no historical monuments, but there is a twist on the motor speedway angle ... sorta.

 

Always before, I'd used the "Tourist Friendly" attribute to denote that it was a nice place to visit, especially for those who are not familiar with the area.

Here, I was going to denote that it's "Tourist Friendly" simply because finding the cache is not dependent on knowing the area.

 

Since this is a multi-stage mystery, it's not all that quick [probably 15 minutes minimum], so I wondered if "Tourist Friendly" might seem to mean "quick and easy" to some.

 

I'd like to know what you're thinking when you see that attribute, so I might better reflect what type of cache a visitor might be seeking.

 

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Edited October 9, 2018 by VAVAPAM
clarification on hunt time-frame

[+Max and 99 349]

Just now, VAVAPAM said:

I'm setting up a new mystery cache in a town where the main tourists are either just passing through or at a major NASCAR (motor speedway) event.

No lovely vistas, no historical monuments, but there is a twist on the motor speedway angle ... sorta.

 

Always before, I'd used the "Tourist Friendly" attribute to denote that it was a nice place to visit, especially for those who are not familiar with the area.

Here, I was going to denote that it's "Tourist Friendly" simply because finding the cache is not dependent on knowing the area.

 

I'd like to know your thoughts on what you're thinking when you see that attribute, so I might better reflect what type of cache a visitor might be seeking.

 

Thanks in advance for your insights.

What a great question!  I assumed that the attribute meant the spot is one that a tourist would consider worthy of a stop (if they weren't there for a geocache). 

[+VAVAPAM 12]

Max and 99; that's what I was worried about if I added that attribute; thank you!

[+Max and 99 349]

4 minutes ago, VAVAPAM said:

Max and 99; that's what I was worried about if I added that attribute; thank you!

Your other idea on what the attribute means is quite valid!

[+VAVAPAM 12]

Ok,

11 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Your other idea on what the attribute means is quite valid!

 

Ok, thanks! Sometimes it's hard to think from a visitor's perspective, and I'd rather not disappoint if most think, "Well, yeah, that was fun, but I really wanted a view or monument."

Thank you for that perspective.

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by VAVAPAM
putting words in other peoples' mouths

[+VAVAPAM 12]

Going to leave off the Tourist Friendly attribute on this one.

But ya'll come anyway - and bring the young'uns!

[+MNTA 99]

I've seen the usage of non-tourist friendly in areas with homeless camps or shelters nearby close to downtown kind of warn them off a bit I guess though you got to wonder why place it then.

[+barefootjeff 1025]

This is weird. Curious to see which of my caches have that attribute, I created a PQ selecting caches in Australia that I own with the Tourist Friendly attribute set. It returned 9 caches, most of which were scenic spots or quick-to-find caches with a fun twist. One on the list, though, GC664DZ, a five stage T3.5 multi, I thought perhaps shouldn't so I went to edit it, only to find it doesn't have that attribute set. Yet the PQ keeps insisting it does. The other eight do have the attribute, there's just that one that doesn't.

 

My PQ uses this:

 

 

and this is on that cache it thinks has the attribute:

 

[+Isonzo Karst 338]

@barefootjeff - some attributes "ghost" in pocket queries; if the attribute has ever been set on a cache, it will continue to be returned, even though now removed.  

Another example, if you ask for the partnership attribute (the hand shake)  in the US state of Georgia, that query will return 22 caches. None of them have it now,  haven't had it for years.

 

Early on ALL attributes ghosted. This became a real issue with the Needs Maintenance attribute, and got fixed (for it anyway). I'm only certain that  NM and Wheelchair attribute do NOT ghost. Beyond that, I don't know. 

 

I did run a query for Multi, New South Wales  regular, D 3 T 3.5, with "tourist friendly" attribute, and yes, it returns your cache ;-)

So for sure, partnership and tourist friendly ghost.  I don't care enough about this to test for others...

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Isonzo Karst

[+barefootjeff 1025]

12 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

@barefootjeff - some attributes "ghost" in pocket queries; if the attribute has ever been set on a cache, it will continue to be returned, even though now removed.  

Another example, if you ask for the partnership attribute in the US state of Georgia, that query will return 22 caches. None of them have it now,  haven't had it for years.

 

At one point ALL attributes ghosted. This became a real issue for the NM attribute, and got fixed (for it anyway). I'm only certain that  NM and Wheelchair attribute do NOT ghost. Beyond that, I don't know. 

 

I did run a query for Multi, New South Wales  regular, D 3 T 3.5, with "tourist friendly" attribute, and yes, it returns your cache ;-)

So for sure, partnership and tourist friendly ghost.  I don't care enough about this to test for others...

 

 

Thanks for that. Yes, I'm pretty sure I had that attribute set initially but then removed it as I felt the cache was a bit too involved for tourists to the area, particularly as there's no mobile data available at any of the waypoints.

[+Isonzo Karst 338]

no mobile data available at any of the waypoints.

 

  I suspect this is #1 of the possible meanings of "tourist friendly".

[+on4bam 441]

I consider "tourist friendly" as close or at a spot where tourists visit and/or are not a lot of effort. Caches with that attribute are mostly quick grabs or short multi's.

 

OTOH, a few hours walking a Wherigo along a city's top attractions is also "tourist friendly".

 

Having or not having mobile data should not be an issue when considering the attribute.

 

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher 814]

10 hours ago, VAVAPAM said:

10 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Your other idea on what the attribute means is quite valid!

 

Ok, thanks! Sometimes it's hard to think from a visitor's perspective, and I'd rather not disappoint if most think, "Well, yeah, that was fun, but I really wanted a view or monument."

Thank you for that perspective.

 

SInce it's a puzzle cache, using the attribute to indicate that local knowledge is not required would make sense to me.  As someone that travels frequently this information is very useful to me.  You could add "No local knowledge required to solve the puzzle or find the cache." to your description to remove any ambiguity about the attribute.

[+Goldenwattle 248]

"Tourist friendly" to me means close to hotels (I've been thrilled to find a few caches outside of my motel, the closest 25 metres from my room), places of interest such as museums, art galleries, historical buildings, views, etc. As tourists are travelling they might not have much equipment with them, so if it's "tourist friendly", to me that means no special equipment is needed to get the cache and it's in easy reach, ie no climbing, as tourists might not be dressed for it, or have anything to stand on to reach.

The best day I've had with "tourist friendly" caches was in Wellington, NZ. The caches were is great spots that took me to parks, statues, old churches, etc. Lots in the CBD that I could easily walk from one to the next. One of the best city tours I have had, just by finding caches. No other city where I have cached around the world, has provided such a good tour, as the caches in Wellington did. Either they didn't consistently take me to good places, or they were too few or far apart for someone walking, as many tourists do.

[+Team Christiansen 202]

On 10/9/2018 at 3:45 AM, Isonzo Karst said:

@barefootjeff - some attributes "ghost" in pocket queries; if the attribute has ever been set on a cache, it will continue to be returned, even though now removed.  

Another example, if you ask for the partnership attribute (the hand shake)  in the US state of Georgia, that query will return 22 caches. None of them have it now,  haven't had it for years.

 

Early on ALL attributes ghosted. This became a real issue with the Needs Maintenance attribute, and got fixed (for it anyway). I'm only certain that  NM and Wheelchair attribute do NOT ghost. Beyond that, I don't know. 

 

I did run a query for Multi, New South Wales  regular, D 3 T 3.5, with "tourist friendly" attribute, and yes, it returns your cache ;-)

So for sure, partnership and tourist friendly ghost.  I don't care enough about this to test for others...

 

 

Getting off-topic but ... Similar issue happens on Project-GC challenge checkers that are based on attributes. The fix is easy. If you can figure out which cache is giving the incorrect result on an attribute, you can refresh the cache data on Project-GC's website by clicking on the Support button (upper right-hand corner), then click on the Self-Support button, then type in the GC code at the bottom and click on the Refresh button. The cache details are then updated on the PGC site and running the challenge checker should then give you a updated proper result.

[+cerberus1 1177]

When we're doing the  tourist thing, historic or unique natural areas are first on the list, then museums.   

Similar to Max and 99, that means caches are secondary to the area visited.  Virtuals and Earthcaches are often in these areas.  

We would travel to another area for a certain cache, but it would be for the cache and not as a "tourist" to the area itself. 

[+niraD 1175]

I don't think I've ever used the Tourist Friendly attribute in a PQ or search. My caches haven't used it either.

 

But I would expect it to mean that the location is somewhere that my muggle friends/relatives could "play tourist" while I search for the geocache.

[+funkymunkyzone 186]

I've learnt something from this topic!

 

In the past I've used the Tourist Friendly as an indicator that the cache is easily done, without taking too much time away from a tourist making their way around the area, not a messy spot after which they'll need to clean themselves or their clothes, not requiring any preparation or equipment that a tourist is unlikely to be able to do/have.

 

I guess I treated more like "is a tourist likely to be capable of this cache" rather than making it as a "recommended spot for tourists to stop at", but that makes a lot of sense.

 

[+frostengel 191]

I use the attribute on my virtual which takes several hours to complete. While doing the cache you'll find many interesting places of my hometown, e. g. the Karlsruher castle and the main graveyard.

 

I do not see why tourists should only be interested in quick finds. Being a tourist is more than just being there - for me being a "tourist" means that I want to see something, do sight-seeing or find hidden places that are beautiful. If I just visit another city for any other reason (e. g. geocaching :-)) I am a "short visitor" (or similar) and not a tourist.

 

So for me this attribute has nothing to do with the needed time for a geocache hunt. Or perhaps it is even the other way round: If I needed some time to do a long multi cache showing several areas or showing one area very intensive I will learn more about the place(s) as if I just stop and grab a micro cache and turn to the next geocache. So if tourist friendliness is connected to the cache length than longer caches seem to be more tourist friendly than park and grabs!

 

Of course that is a subjective opinion!

 

Jochen

[+VAVAPAM 12]

On 10/9/2018 at 6:54 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

You could add "No local knowledge required to solve the puzzle or find the cache." to your description to remove any ambiguity about the attribute.

 

I will probably add this type of statement to it, whether or not I use the attribute. Thank you.

 

I really appreciate the various viewpoints and input from all you ... including ghostly cures - bonus!

 

Thanks to all.

[+barefootjeff 1025]

On 10/9/2018 at 10:23 PM, Goldenwattle said:

"Tourist friendly" to me means close to hotels (I've been thrilled to find a few caches outside of my motel, the closest 25 metres from my room), places of interest such as museums, art galleries, historical buildings, views, etc. As tourists are travelling they might not have much equipment with them, so if it's "tourist friendly", to me that means no special equipment is needed to get the cache and it's in easy reach, ie no climbing, as tourists might not be dressed for it, or have anything to stand on to reach.

The best day I've had with "tourist friendly" caches was in Wellington, NZ. The caches were is great spots that took me to parks, statues, old churches, etc. Lots in the CBD that I could easily walk from one to the next. One of the best city tours I have had, just by finding caches. No other city where I have cached around the world, has provided such a good tour, as the caches in Wellington did. Either they didn't consistently take me to good places, or they were too few or far apart for someone walking, as many tourists do.

 

Here on the Central Coast, the tourists we get are mostly day visitors from Sydney or people holidaying in the various beachside resorts, so they're not likely to be wearing their Sunday best or just looking for historical monuments close to accomodation. I've mainly used the attribute on scenic caches, particularly those that offer something a little different to the signposted lookouts.

[+Goldenwattle 248]

34 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Here on the Central Coast, the tourists we get are mostly day visitors from Sydney or people holidaying in the various beachside resorts, so they're not likely to be wearing their Sunday best or just looking for historical monuments close to accomodation. I've mainly used the attribute on scenic caches, particularly those that offer something a little different to the signposted lookouts.

They might still not have anything to stand on though to reach high difficult caches. A cache near the resort would be "Tourist friendly"  there.

[+barefootjeff 1025]

2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

They might still not have anything to stand on though to reach high difficult caches. A cache near the resort would be "Tourist friendly"  there.

 

Yep, and none of mine with that attribute require any special tools or something to stand on, just a short hike (<1km) to reach the place of interest.

[+funkymunkyzone 186]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Here on the Central Coast, the tourists we get are mostly day visitors from Sydney or people holidaying in the various beachside resorts, so they're not likely to be wearing their Sunday best or just looking for historical monuments close to accomodation. I've mainly used the attribute on scenic caches, particularly those that offer something a little different to the signposted lookouts.

 

Mind you there is also the scenic view attribute, which I guess is part of the reason for my interpretation of the tourist attribute.

 

Interesting discussion

[+barefootjeff 1025]

1 minute ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Mind you there is also the scenic view attribute, which I guess is part of the reason for my interpretation of the tourist attribute.

 

Interesting discussion

 

Yes indeed. I've used the scenic view attribute on hides which I wouldn't consider tourist friendly due to the length of the hike, toughness of the terrain or the complexity of the task (for multis in particular), on the basis that most tourists are likely to have kids with them. Similarly a cache at an historical site can be tourist friendly without being scenic.

[+Unimogger 0]

Interesting question. I never really thought about what GCHQ means by Tourist friendly. There are different things that could make it tourist friendly; a place where tourists go, a place where tourists might want to go (that they would not go to otherwise), or a place with a nice view. Before I put that attribute on one of my caches I always try to think of how I would feel getting a cache when away from home. One thing I consider is how hard it is to figure out where to go to get to the cache.  If getting to the cache means that you need to have inside knowledge that isn't easy for a visitor to find then I wouldn't put a tourist friendly attribute. Example, if a cache looks like it can be reached a short distance from ABC Street but in reality you have to drive half a mile away to a trail head then hike to GZ. Or if the cache is on a trail that isn't an "official trail" and a cacher might not know where to find the trail. I guess when in doubt, leave it out?

[+Goldenwattle 248]

I just checked out my caches to decide if any should have the Tourist friendly attribute, and decided 3 could; two at railway stations (sidetracked series) and one on a scenic cycle path that many tourists cycle. Then I saw what the attribute looked like - a suitcase - and decided not to. If I had seen that attribute without knowing what it was (in fact, I had to look for the writing before I knew what it meant), it wouldn't say Tourist friendly to me, but I would think accommodation. I can't think of a symbol that does say 'tourist' to me, without waving the pointer over it and reading what it means. Actual writing is all I can think of, and that isn't suitable with so many languages.

[+barefootjeff 1025]

35 minutes ago, Unimogger said:

Interesting question. I never really thought about what GCHQ means by Tourist friendly. There are different things that could make it tourist friendly; a place where tourists go, a place where tourists might want to go (that they would not go to otherwise), or a place with a nice view. Before I put that attribute on one of my caches I always try to think of how I would feel getting a cache when away from home. One thing I consider is how hard it is to figure out where to go to get to the cache.  If getting to the cache means that you need to have inside knowledge that isn't easy for a visitor to find then I wouldn't put a tourist friendly attribute. Example, if a cache looks like it can be reached a short distance from ABC Street but in reality you have to drive half a mile away to a trail head then hike to GZ. Or if the cache is on a trail that isn't an "official trail" and a cacher might not know where to find the trail. I guess when in doubt, leave it out?

 

For the two situations you mentioned, a parking spot that isn't the closest road to the cache or an unofficial trail, I'd just add Parking and/or Trailhead waypoints.

[+memetrollsXD 1]

It just means to me that I don't need to know the language, or need to do something only ______ are doing