Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
JymMoriartyLBL

More categories of cache

Recommended Posts

I really think that some caches, in particular caches that are up trees, should have their own classifications and not be called "Traditional". If a cache requires specialist knowledge and/or equipment, then it should be classified so. Caches that are up trees and require canoes are the first that leap to mind for this.

 

Also, there seems to be a massive variety in puzzle caches too and some multicaches are more like puzzles/vice versa. There are some multicaches that claim to be multi-virtuals too and get very complicated. There are some multis that require up to 19 places to be visited to get to one cache, instead of being a series or a Wherigo. A cache that's a route/exploration would be good to know too. 

 

Plus, challenge caches should have their own symbol? Like a trophy.

 

Am I alone in thinking that reclassification/additional cache types could be really helpful?

 

Plus, in terms of having solved the co-ords for a puzzle/multi and added the waypoint, it would be cool if the website could change the white symbol ring on the map to another colour, so you know it's pending you going to get it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Tree climbs, canoes, etc. are covered by attributes.

 

It would be nice to have challenge caches with their own symbol/cache type. That's been discussed before (and pretty much agreed upon).

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

Tree climbs, canoes, etc. are covered by attributes.

These factors are also reflected in the terrain rating. If you aren't ready to take on such terrain, then stick to caches with lower terrain ratings.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, niraD said:

These factors are also reflected in the terrain rating. If you aren't ready to take on such terrain, then stick to caches with lower terrain ratings.

I agree; they should be reflected in the terrain rating.

 

But not all COs rate them correctly. Not when the know-it-all beginner rates their cache up a tree at 1.5, because "the walk to the tree is flat".

 

If the finders could rate terrain (especially) and difficulty and this be averaged out and shown to future finders, it would overcome these COs who interpret things their way. It would also make caching safer; indicating the true terrain; not what the CO rates it as. For safety's sake alone; this feature should be added, at least for terrain. Some COs low ratings for terrain are dangerous.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

Plus, in terms of having solved the co-ords for a puzzle/multi and added the waypoint, it would be cool if the website could change the white symbol ring on the map to another colour, so you know it's pending you going to get it.

 

If you correct the coords (on the app or the website), the maps show a puzzle-piece icon at those coordinates.

 

Website:

40195C63-CEA6-4F33-99AA-26129FA874D6.jpeg.7fa477bf92b11c2df44b375d07def0df.jpeg

 

App:

87920709-4369-4C79-9EBB-0BBA39E36857.jpeg.f785816328ff693f4fc97cd72711f25b.jpeg

 

Map (on App):

EDA352F8-86B8-4087-BDFA-E6FF37DC27D8.jpeg.2eed65382d9bd289717520fa8d126302.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

I really think that some caches, in particular caches that are up trees, should have their own classifications and not be called "Traditional". If a cache requires specialist knowledge and/or equipment, then it should be classified so. Caches that are up trees and require canoes are the first that leap to mind for this.

 

I think Attributes and D/T ratings cover these scenarios adequately - assuming they are applied correctly!

 

9 hours ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

 

Also, there seems to be a massive variety in puzzle caches too and some multicaches are more like puzzles/vice versa. There are some multicaches that claim to be multi-virtuals too and get very complicated. There are some multis that require up to 19 places to be visited to get to one cache, instead of being a series or a Wherigo. A cache that's a route/exploration would be good to know too. 

 

Agreed, there are puzzles that could/should be classified as multis, and vice versa; and there do seem to be regional differences; but I don’t see how additional cache types will help here.

 

9 hours ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

 

Plus, challenge caches should have their own symbol? Like a trophy.

 

+1

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Agreed, there are puzzles that could/should be classified as multis, and vice versa; and there do seem to be regional differences; but I don’t see how additional cache types will help here.

 

It would help if geocachers know the difference better. Basically, a multi-cache is a puzzle which you start searching from the posted coordinates. A mystery cache is a puzzle with bogus-coordinates you are not supposed to visit. This is the basic principle with some exceptions but did you know this?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, having challenges as separate cache types is something I've been hoping for for a long time.

 

As for the rest issues covered in this topic, you can't fix every wrong doing with a system patch. If a CO sets incorrect attributes, it's his fault, not the site administrators. What should be done in such situation is mentioning the wrong assignment in the logs.

 

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Basically, a multi-cache is a puzzle which you start searching from the posted coordinates. A mystery cache is a puzzle with bogus-coordinates you are not supposed to visit. This is the basic principle with some exceptions but did you know this?

 

I have to disagree with this one. A multi is a "look and calculate" type of cache. You should be able to easily calculate final or next stage once you find necessary data (finding the data might be hard though - e.g. hidden in a well camouflaged container).

A puzzle is a cache where you (usually) have to solve problems or bring additional knowledge.

 

So for an example:

"Go to N00 00.000 E00 00.000, find the last date on the tablet and use the digits for the following formula (...)" - Multicache

"Go to N00 00.000 E00 00.000, read the description on the tablet. Who is it about? Us the birth date of that person in the following formula (the birth date isn't on the tablet)" - A puzzle.

"Go to N00 00.000 E00 00.000, there is a mystery box which you have to open to sign the logbook" - A puzzle.

 

Of course there are many grey areas but for me the above is the main diffrentiation.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, TheVoytekBear said:

I have to disagree with this one.

 

This is not something you may agree or disagree. You have to know the difference to understand how to play and make caches. There is no need to add more categories when there is already difficulties to understand what the current types are. You have seen some caches and made your own interpretation based on what you have seen but have you checked what the guidelines are telling about them?

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, TheVoytekBear said:

"Go to N00 00.000 E00 00.000, there is a mystery box which you have to open to sign the logbook" - A puzzle.

Or quite probably a Traditional/Multi/Letterbox with a "Field Puzzle" attribute.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

The 'Field Puzzle' is the most 'mysterious' attribute in this case, in my opinion.

Suppose I make a cache where there is a container at starting point with a puzzle inside required to solve to find the final container. The puzzle is not an easy one, you do not need to use external knowledge resources (like internet) to solve it but it might help a lot. If I add a 'Field Puzzle' attribute, can it still be a multi-cache or should it be a mystery cache regardless of an attribute added?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

It would help if geocachers know the difference better. Basically, a multi-cache is a puzzle which you start searching from the posted coordinates. A mystery cache is a puzzle with bogus-coordinates you are not supposed to visit. This is the basic principle with some exceptions but did you know this?

 

I believe so. 😀

 

For me the key distinction is:

 

Multi: The cache can be found by reading the cache page and following the instructions in the field.

 

Mystery: The cache cannot be found without calculation, or research that goes beyond reading the cache page.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127

 

However, I think we could all find plenty of examples of caches that have been classified incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, rapotek said:

Suppose I make a cache where there is a container at starting point with a puzzle inside required to solve to find the final container. The puzzle is not an easy one, you do not need to use external knowledge resources (like internet) to solve it but it might help a lot. If I add a 'Field Puzzle' attribute, can it still be a multi-cache or should it be a mystery cache regardless of an attribute added?

 

This is one exception not always remembered even by revievers. It the cache requires research that goes beyond reading the cache page, like using internet, it is a mystery cache. For example you can not make Intercache style multi-cache because it requires constant on-line connection. QR-codes have been causing problems. Some reviewers allows them as a multi-cache and some doesn't.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My thoughts, if I elaborate on my initial point in regards to tree climbing etc. is that surely, there is a way, that Traditional Caches could have a subsection for specialist equipment/knowledge.

 

If this isn't possible, then is there a search function that can exclude tree climbing attributes for example and you can view a map that's actually achievable? Currently, the main map lets you vanish traditional caches etc but only as a whole.

 

In terms of D/T, climbing up a mountain could qualify as harsh terrain, but you might not need any equipment, whereas the tree outside your front door could have a cache 8m high and you have to construct a pulley. I have quite a lot of local tree caches and there's no chance I'm going up there, but on the map, they look like potentially nice series to do in the day,

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

My thoughts, if I elaborate on my initial point in regards to tree climbing etc. is that surely, there is a way, that Traditional Caches could have a subsection for specialist equipment/knowledge.

 

If this isn't possible, then is there a search function that can exclude tree climbing attributes for example and you can view a map that's actually achievable? Currently, the main map lets you vanish traditional caches etc but only as a whole.

 

In terms of D/T, climbing up a mountain could qualify as harsh terrain, but you might not need any equipment, whereas the tree outside your front door could have a cache 8m high and you have to construct a pulley. I have quite a lot of local tree caches and there's no chance I'm going up there, but on the map, they look like potentially nice series to do in the day,

Sort by Treeain rating. The tree climbing caches should be quite high (like 4+) on that rating.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, K13 said:

Sort by Treeain rating. The tree climbing caches should be quite high (like 4+) on that rating.

 

But, this isn't doable once you're looking at the map and you can't edit that. So, say you're looking at a certain area, you can't now say, actually, don't show me these high terrains, you have to create a new search.

 

Why is it designed this way? Surely, by looking at the map, you should be able to filter everything.

 

This is all by and by, because you can't filter on the app, which is where a lot of cache finding and choosing happens. A subcategory would allow the app and the website, to clearly show a tree climb/canoe etc.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

My thoughts, if I elaborate on my initial point in regards to tree climbing etc. is that surely, there is a way, that Traditional Caches could have a subsection for specialist equipment/knowledge.

 

If this isn't possible, then is there a search function that can exclude tree climbing attributes for example and you can view a map that's actually achievable? Currently, the main map lets you vanish traditional caches etc but only as a whole.

 

In terms of D/T, climbing up a mountain could qualify as harsh terrain, but you might not need any equipment, whereas the tree outside your front door could have a cache 8m high and you have to construct a pulley. I have quite a lot of local tree caches and there's no chance I'm going up there, but on the map, they look like potentially nice series to do in the day,

 

Currently, you'd need to use pocket queries to filter out caches with specific attributes set.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

But, this isn't doable once you're looking at the map and you can't edit that. So, say you're looking at a certain area, you can't now say, actually, don't show me these high terrains, you have to create a new search.

 

Why is it designed this way? Surely, by looking at the map, you should be able to filter everything.

 

You can do it by using the Search page and just input your city. Then additional filter options are available and you can show the results on the map.FilterT.thumb.png.843c01ddfe05bdd37def7aca35262067.png

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

 

If this isn't possible, then is there a search function that can exclude tree climbing attributes for example and you can view a map that's actually achievable?

 

As IceColdUK has posted, what you want is a pocket query.  I use them almost exclusively myself for caching.   You can fiddle with attributes and ratings, and map the results.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

 

Why is it designed this way? Surely, by looking at the map, you should be able to filter everything.

 

So what you really want, rather than new cache categories, is the ability to filter/search by attributes - I think that will get much more support and is more likely to be implemented.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

So what you really want, rather than new cache categories, is the ability to filter/search by attributes - I think that will get much more support and is more likely to be implemented.

 

 

I would like that 100%, including on the app.

 

But I stick by my original point too, being able to see on the standard map that a cache involves climbing, without having to go into it, would be really helpful. I know for many people, they probably don't have many trees for climbing around, but I'm on the border of town/city and fields/woods, there's a surprising number around. Some people love climbing ones, I've seen posts on Fb about it and that would be handy for them too.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

But I stick by my original point too, being able to see on the standard map that a cache involves climbing, without having to go into it, would be really helpful. I know for many people, they probably don't have many trees for climbing around, but I'm on the border of town/city and fields/woods, there's a surprising number around. Some people love climbing ones, I've seen posts on Fb about it and that would be handy for them too.

 

I don't feel we really need to dumb-down the hobby any more than it is.   All caches are rated by their difficulty and terrain.  

If you're simply looking to stay clear of those caches that are difficult for you,  D/T usually works.  :)

For example, what kind of climbing ?       

"Climb a tree" could be anything from a 4 , simply hand-climbing a tree, and 5, technical rope use. 

How would this "category" differentiate the two?   Next month would someone propose sub-categories since the categories now need some work ?  

 What about multis with a 5T rating, but involves different terrains (some water) within the same tree cache ?  We've done a few...

See how things start getting silly ?

 

You could already get close (if COs would place attributes on their caches),  by using PQs.  

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I don't feel we really need to dumb-down the hobby any more than it is.   All caches are rated by their difficulty and terrain.  

If you're simply looking to stay clear of those caches that are difficult for you,  D/T usually works.  :)

For example, what kind of climbing ?       

"Climb a tree" could be anything from a 4 , simply hand-climbing a tree, and 5, technical rope use. 

How would this "category" differentiate the two?   Next month would someone propose sub-categories since the categories now need some work ?  

 What about multis with a 5T rating, but involves different terrains (some water) within the same tree cache ?  We've done a few...

See how things start getting silly ?

 

You could already get close (if COs would place attributes on their caches),  by using PQs.  

 

There's also the matter of the style of cache. For example, if a tree-climbing cache today was listed as a Multi and was later listed as a "Tree-cache", you lose that multi information. Likewise with a puzzle cache up a tree, etc. That's where the "Tree climbing" attribute comes in, because it can be added to a cache and we can have both the cache type and tree climbing information alongside each other.

 

It sounds like what's really needed is an easier way to search based on attributes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Attributes can solve issues if they are easily searchable and added correctly. From the main map, this isn't doable, so unless you're a seasoned hand and you know that search actually brings up something different, then you might not stumble across it. You also might not see the filters option. I've brought a few people to caching and they really struggle to find the website/app/whole deal accessible. PQ's are a big complicated mess that no-one wants to touch, if they've actually heard of them. 

 

The main points as I see them at this point in the conversation: 

  1. Searching in detail/being able to filter by attributes
  2. Filtered searching from the main map on the website and not just the search feature option
  3. Challenge caches to have their own symbol

How does that sound?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

The main points as I see them at this point in the conversation: 

  1. Searching in detail/being able to filter by attributes
  2. Filtered searching from the main map on the website and not just the search feature option
  3. Challenge caches to have their own symbol

How does that sound?

 

It looks like you're about to get your wish on point 2. From the latest Release Notes thread, from the 25th of April the Browse map (what you call the main map) will be replaced by the Search map when you click on View Map from the Play menu at the top of the page or click on View Larger Map from a cache page, with the Browse map only accessible as a toggle from the Search map.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It looks like you're about to get your wish on point 2. From the latest Release Notes thread, from the 25th of April the Browse map (what you call the main map) will be replaced by the Search map when you click on View Map from the Play menu at the top of the page or click on View Larger Map from a cache page, with the Browse map only accessible as a toggle from the Search map.

 

Huzzah! 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

All caches are rated by their difficulty and terrain.  

If you're simply looking to stay clear of those caches that are difficult for you,  D/T usually works.  :)

For example, what kind of climbing ?       

"Climb a tree" could be anything from a 4 , simply hand-climbing a tree, and 5, technical rope use. 

How would this "category" differentiate the two?

 

 

Difficulty/Terrain too much depends on a cache owner estimation, it is too ambiguous in my opinion. But there are more attributes to choose from, although the icons do not suggest so. There is a 'Difficult climbing' attribute, it can be used with 'Tree climbing required' together to flag up the climbing requiring higher skills. Also, there is a 'Climbing gear required' attribute, with 'Tree climbing required' it can be used for really challenging trees.

 

But I miss a kind of 'Dangerous cache' attribute. There is a 'Dangerous area' attribute but it is not the same, I suppose. I mean an attribute which says the cache is placed in such manner that getting to it without sufficient skills and equipment may lead to serious injuries or even death.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, rapotek said:

But I miss a kind of 'Dangerous cache' attribute. There is a 'Dangerous area' attribute but it is not the same, I suppose. I mean an attribute which says the cache is placed in such manner that getting to it without sufficient skills and equipment may lead to serious injuries or even death.

 

You can use the dangerous area attribute always for this purpose unless the cache itself, not the surrounding area,  exposes a danger like electric schock or explosion, if you open or access the container wrong way. There is no dangerous cache attribute, but in this case it would be kind to explain the situation in the description and still use the dangerous area attibute.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, rapotek said:

But I miss a kind of 'Dangerous cache' attribute. There is a 'Dangerous area' attribute but it is not the same, I suppose. I mean an attribute which says the cache is placed in such manner that getting to it without sufficient skills and equipment may lead to serious injuries or even death.

 

I think "dangerous" would be too broad a brush. There are many reasons why a cache could be dangerous for someone ill-prepared and the best way to deal with that is to know what the specific danger is. A P&G could be dangerous if it's close to a busy road, for example. Some of the more common dangers are covered by specific attributes, such as cliffs/falling rocks, poisonous plants, dangerous animals, thorns, ticks, hunting and abandoned mines, while significant hike, difficult climbing, tree climbing, may require swimming, may require wading, watch for livestock and abandoned structure could present hazards to some who aren't prepared. Some of the negative attributes can indicate hazards too, like not recommended at night and no kids. Most of the special equipment required (boat, climbing gear, scuba gear, flashlight, snow shoes, cross country skis) can infer hazards. If there was an attribute I'd most like to have on some of my hides which isn't currently available, it'd be slippery surface.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

You can use the dangerous area attribute always for this purpose unless the cache itself, not the surrounding area,  exposes a danger like electric schock or explosion, if you open or access the container wrong way. There is no dangerous cache attribute, but in this case it would be kind to explain the situation in the description and still use the dangerous area attibute.

 

It is possible that I understand dangerous area differently. For example: there is a forest with roads quite often traveled by walkers, runners, bikers etc. I can hardly name it a dangerous area, in daylight especially. And there is a cache near the road, placed on a tree at about 5 meters. It does not need special equipment because thick branches are available from the cache to ground level almost. But it is a dangerous cache for me because the risk of falling from the cache height is not marginal and it may end badly.

 

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I think "dangerous" would be too broad a brush. There are many reasons why a cache could be dangerous for someone ill-prepared and the best way to deal with that is to know what the specific danger is. A P&G could be dangerous if it's close to a busy road, for example. Some of the more common dangers are covered by specific attributes, such as cliffs/falling rocks, poisonous plants, dangerous animals, thorns, ticks, hunting and abandoned mines, while significant hike, difficult climbing, tree climbing, may require swimming, may require wading, watch for livestock and abandoned structure could present hazards to some who aren't prepared. Some of the negative attributes can indicate hazards too, like not recommended at night and no kids. Most of the special equipment required (boat, climbing gear, scuba gear, flashlight, snow shoes, cross country skis) can infer hazards. If there was an attribute I'd most like to have on some of my hides which isn't currently available, it'd be slippery surface.

 

Yes, there are many attributes covering dangers but there is no common attribute which will warn on the first sight: this cache hunting can be harmful if you are not well prepared, look closely at another attributes and cache description to know more. I someone tries to avoid any kind of potentially harmful actions, one look will be enough to ignore the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rapotek said:

It is possible that I understand dangerous area differently. For example: there is a forest with roads quite often traveled by walkers, runners, bikers etc. I can hardly name it a dangerous area, in daylight especially. And there is a cache near the road, placed on a tree at about 5 meters. It does not need special equipment because thick branches are available from the cache to ground level almost. But it is a dangerous cache for me because the risk of falling from the cache height is not marginal and it may end badly.

 

Do you fall from the tree because the cache container gives some nasty surprise or is it just the area where you are seeking the cache which makes it dangerous? Normally the danger comes from the area, not the cache itself.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Do you fall from the tree because the cache container gives some nasty surprise or is it just the area where you are seeking the cache which makes it dangerous? Normally the danger comes from the area, not the cache itself.

 

That is why I wrote my understanding of area is different. A single standing tree is not area for me, it may stand within area. I know it may only be a semantic difference but if I ask some people not involved in geocaching the answer would be the same. A 'dangerous location' or even 'dangerous place' would be more meaningful in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rapotek said:

 

That is why I wrote my understanding of area is different. A single standing tree is not area for me, it may stand within area. I know it may only be a semantic difference but if I ask some people not involved in geocaching the answer would be the same. A 'dangerous location' or even 'dangerous place' would be more meaningful in this case.

 

All of my caches have some element of danger. They're all in bushland so at the very least is the possibility of encountering snakes and other wildlife like leeches, ticks, spiders and biting insects. Many are off-track and are close to two or three metre dropoffs where you could easily break an arm or a leg if you're not careful, likewise there are loose rocks and slippery leaf litter that can lead to a fall. Some have cliffs nearby and on those I have both the cliffs/falling rocks attribute and the no kids attribute. Some involve long and/or steep hikes which could be dangerous in hot weather (dehydration and heat stroke can be deadly) or for someone with a poor level of fitness. Even my EarthCache is dangerous if attempted at high tide or when the seas are high, and the rocks around the headland can develop a very slipperly algal growth after prolonged rain.

 

Whether a cache is dangerous or not can also depend on the individual. For a tall skinny twenty-year-old, climbing a tree or scrambling over boulders would pose little risk, but for someone my age (64) with stubby little arms and legs and a bit of excess girth it's a different story. If I see a cache has a tree climb attribute I'll take a ladder.

 

The other problem I see with a blanket "dangerous" attribute is that its absence could be construed by some to mean there are no dangers at all, which in itself is a very dangerous assumption to make. A cache in a park hidden at the base of a tree might seem innocuous enough, until a branch falls and hits the cacher on the head. All trees can be dangerous even if you don't try to climb them. Rain can make a paved area slippery. Wind can topple things over. Rivers, creeks and stormwater drains can suddenly flood. Lightning can strike. Motor vehicles are an ever-present danger on urban hides. The whole world is a dangerous place.

 

A "dangerous" attribute by itself really doesn't convey much information, as for anyone concerned about safety, the very next question has to be "What are the dangers and how can they be managed?" And that question should be asked of any cache whether it has a dangerous attribute or not.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

All of my caches have some element of danger. They're all in bushland so at the very least is the possibility of encountering snakes and other wildlife like leeches, ticks, spiders and biting insects. Many are off-track and are close to two or three metre dropoffs where you could easily break an arm or a leg if you're not careful, likewise there are loose rocks and slippery leaf litter that can lead to a fall. Some have cliffs nearby and on those I have both the cliffs/falling rocks attribute and the no kids attribute. Some involve long and/or steep hikes which could be dangerous in hot weather (dehydration and heat stroke can be deadly) or for someone with a poor level of fitness. Even my EarthCache is dangerous if attempted at high tide or when the seas are high, and the rocks around the headland can develop a very slipperly algal growth after prolonged rain.

 

Whether a cache is dangerous or not can also depend on the individual. For a tall skinny twenty-year-old, climbing a tree or scrambling over boulders would pose little risk, but for someone my age (64) with stubby little arms and legs and a bit of excess girth it's a different story. If I see a cache has a tree climb attribute I'll take a ladder.

 

The other problem I see with a blanket "dangerous" attribute is that its absence could be construed by some to mean there are no dangers at all, which in itself is a very dangerous assumption to make. A cache in a park hidden at the base of a tree might seem innocuous enough, until a branch falls and hits the cacher on the head. All trees can be dangerous even if you don't try to climb them. Rain can make a paved area slippery. Wind can topple things over. Rivers, creeks and stormwater drains can suddenly flood. Lightning can strike. Motor vehicles are an ever-present danger on urban hides. The whole world is a dangerous place.

 

A "dangerous" attribute by itself really doesn't convey much information, as for anyone concerned about safety, the very next question has to be "What are the dangers and how can they be managed?" And that question should be asked of any cache whether it has a dangerous attribute or not.

 

In my opinion almost the whole Australian continent is a 'dangerous area' but that is a minor thing ;)

I should be more specific here. If simple entrance into area can be dangerous whatever purpose you are there - looking for a particular cache or only passing without any geocaching on mind - it is a dangerous area, a deep swamp for example. If you can relatively safely pass area, even close to the cache, but without looking for it - it is not a dangerous area (and as I wrote before, area is wider than single tree for me). I agree, of course, one can see something dangerous where someone else does not, it is subjective view and always be. But going back to the tree example I put before - if I made a cache like this and add 'dangerous area' attribute, because I consider it dangerous, I am almost sure there would be questions 'what is so dangerous here, it is such a quiet neighborhood?' or something like that.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/15/2019 at 1:12 AM, JymMoriartyLBL said:

I really think that some caches, in particular caches that are up trees, should have their own classifications and not be called "Traditional". If a cache requires specialist knowledge and/or equipment, then it should be classified so. Caches that are up trees and require canoes are the first that leap to mind for this.

 

Also, there seems to be a massive variety in puzzle caches too and some multicaches are more like puzzles/vice versa. There are some multicaches that claim to be multi-virtuals too and get very complicated. There are some multis that require up to 19 places to be visited to get to one cache, instead of being a series or a Wherigo. A cache that's a route/exploration would be good to know too. 

 

Plus, challenge caches should have their own symbol? Like a trophy.

 

Am I alone in thinking that reclassification/additional cache types could be really helpful?

 

As others have said, attributes already take care of your first paragraph requests. Also caches which require special equipment is pretty much the definition of T5, so that's taken care of in the existing system too. The second paragraph query can be taken care of by  reading the cache page:

 

I'm not a fan of multi caches, so before heading out I skim read those pages and exclude the ones with multiple waypoints and complex calculations which I know  I'll not enjoy in the field. Officially categorising puzzle types would be impossible: , many of the best I've managed to solve use multiple tricks or entirely novel ones, working out those tricks is actually the attraction of the cache type. By the way, the type is 'unknown', not actually 'puzzle' , I believe I read somewhere the name is a catch-all for those listings which do not neatly fit the other categories, so the definition of 'unknown type' might be 'not a trad., multi, Wherigo or virtual'.

 

The cache listing is how the cache owner decides to present their cache on Groundspeak, if they don't want to  announce it is a tree climb in the title or wording, and a cacher fails to  read the  attributas or past logs or gallery photos or terrain rating where the tree climb is shown and mentioned, that's a failure to prepare ( which is , as we know, a preparation to fail !) rather than something which needs to be addressed by a complex set of cache types which would inevitably cause more disputes over what exactly is a puzzle or a multi  or a field puzzle or a dangerous place .... Those awkward shades of meaning are perfectly well served by a couple of paragraphs of words describing the  cache.

 

As adults we take responsibility for our actions, part of that is assessing risk,  and what we personally  find an acceptable level of risk. I cannot tell you what is safe for you: I've chickened out of tree climbs other folk have had their 10  year old children do ( I claim my problem is having have a highly developed imagination, which when I think of the climb vividly shows me broken and bloody  at the bottom of the tree ...) but then I have scrambled up rock or into confined spaces plenty of others have bottled out of.  Part of the joy of caching for me is that my limitations have been challenged and sometimes overcome, but if I get to a GZ and look at the terrain and think,  actually, no,  that's beyond what I can safely get to, so what ?  I did the sensible thing and learned something about myself.

 

Personally, I'd have a 'dangerous area'  attribute on every cache in every city : obviously ridiculous, but muggers, traffic, pollution, , late night drunks, carjackers , gang warfare, knife crime , urban rioting etc etc, at different seasons, times and moods the city can be a dangerous place. You are far, far more likely to die in a car crash en route to a cache than you are to die attempting to find that cache. The only log I have on any of my caches where a cacher was in danger was when someone tried to threaten a cacher into handing over his 'phone while he was doing a stage of my urban earthcache, the only cache I have in the city.

 

On 4/15/2019 at 1:12 AM, JymMoriartyLBL said:

Plus, in terms of having solved the co-ords for a puzzle/multi and added the waypoint, it would be cool if the website could change the white symbol ring on the map to another colour, so you know it's pending you going to get it.

GSAK (as usual) has this covered, with two different symbols on its cache page map display, one for the original co-ords  (sometimes needed for parking, trailhead etc) and a more prominent one for the final calculated location. It also shows a yellow triangle on wider maps and the cache list ,and is sortable by that corrected co-ordinate flag. I have over 350 solved but not yoet found caches in my GSAK database, easily searched for and downloaded to my device.

 

More and more, I'm thinking there are two entirely different factions developing within groundspeaks version of geocaching: there's the rural, adventurous type, largely (but not solely)  involving GPS, website, outdoorsy , walking/hiking/boating , where numbers are not the main aim, decent size caches are preferred, and folk are reliant on their own skills and resources. On the other hand is the urban app type of caching, which is drive by, smartphone, predominantly micro (that's  all that fits behind a road sign) quick easy find, statistic driven, and altogether less involving sort of caching, where participants may become conditioned to expect a quick find at every attempt with no planning or forethought required.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

So what you really want, rather than new cache categories, is the ability to filter/search by attributes - I think that will get much more support and is more likely to be implemented.

 

I suggested that a few years ago when the "new search" came out.   

Share this post


Link to post

With the exception of Challenge Caches, I don't believe we need any new cache types. In fact, with the appropriate attribute (something like 'has multiple waypoints'), Multi-Cache could be eliminated.

 

However, IMO there are several problems with attributes.

  • Attributes used for searching should be relevant for how a large number of people want to search. For example, the often discussed 'Part of a Power Trail' attribute. Lots of people want that, but we don't have it. So, attributes are not as relevant as they could be for searching.
  • Attributes are also used for information. 'Watch for Livestock' may be a good example. It informs people that there may be livestock. I have a hard time envisioning why someone would want to search for a cache with this attribute (outside of a challenge cache). Are there other informational attributes that people want?
  • Some attributes are overlapping with others, and the definitions are ambiguous. There needs to be well defined definitions. The discussion about dangerous area shows that. And what the heck is 'Truck Driver/RV'?
  • New caches are being published without any attributes.
  • Old caches don't have attributes.
  • There is no way to crowd source attributes on caches.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

With the exception of Challenge Caches, I don't believe we need any new cache types.

Yep. Challenge caches seem distinct from the other cache types, and have outgrown the "catch-all" mystery/puzzle type.

 

3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

In fact, with the appropriate attribute (something like 'has multiple waypoints'), Multi-Cache could be eliminated.

What type do you envision multi-caches moving too? Do you see them being merged with mystery/puzzle caches?

 

3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

And what the heck is 'Truck Driver/RV'?

I think it refers to locations that are accessible from the freeway by vehicles with long wheelbases (i.e., trucks and RVs).

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

More and more, I'm thinking there are two entirely different factions developing within groundspeaks version of geocaching: there's the rural, adventurous type, largely (but not solely)  involving GPS, website, outdoorsy , walking/hiking/boating , where numbers are not the main aim, decent size caches are preferred, and folk are reliant on their own skills and resources. On the other hand is the urban app type of caching, which is drive by, smartphone, predominantly micro (that's  all that fits behind a road sign) quick easy find, statistic driven, and altogether less involving sort of caching, where participants may become conditioned to expect a quick find at every attempt with no planning or forethought required.

4

 

I think that's incredibly dismissive to sideline people as "statistic driven" just because they're urban/smartphone cachers. 

 

What you're saying that now Geocaching is becoming more accessible to everyone because it's accessible via an app, is that everyone wants an easy find. It's not true, but in a city, it is a lot more limited towards the smaller caches. There is still variety. London has a huge variety. You can still go for a 6-hour walk that includes hills, trees and a beach. Plus, there's a ridiculous amount of history in a city and not in a forest or up a hill, so, there's a lot more limit to what can be written in a description, whereas in a city, every building and street has a story to tell. I love that as I go out geocaching I discover parts of the city I've never found before or connect different parts together because normally I don't walk/bus between the sections, I go underground. It is an adventure, I'm just not looking at grass or leaves.

 

I cannot climb trees or mountains etc, I have chronic health issues that stop this and I like to head out not having read every minute detail of a cache. I like to head out and see what I find. I am suggesting that when I'm looking at a map, I'd like to not see Tree climbing caches, or be able to tell from afar/by filtering that it's not possible. 

 

Also, I just want to say that behind a road sign is anywhere from micro magnetic  - 35mm film pot - small tupperware, plus caches on road signs are not always "behind".

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, niraD said:

What type do you envision multi-caches moving too? Do you see them being merged with mystery/puzzle caches?

 

I'm not serious about removing multi-caches. I just wanted to point out that in addition to adding new cache types, we could also eliminate some, by adding enough attributes. The majority of multi-cache's I have done are what I would call traditionals with multiple waypoints. Go to these coordinates, to get more coordinates to follow. If there is a puzzle, or math, or character substitution involved, they could be mystery/puzzle caches, with a multiple waypoints attribute. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/14/2019 at 5:12 PM, JymMoriartyLBL said:

Am I alone in thinking that reclassification/additional cache types could be really helpful?

You're not alone, but I don't agree with you. Yes, those things you're talking about can cause confusion, but I think that's because different things are different. I don't think any kind of formal classification for the cases you're talking about will make these complications any easier to navigate. Putting a geocache in a new category doesn't really help when the example is sufficiently rare that no one recognizes the category when it's used. If the CO doesn't tell you what you need to know in the description, there's no reason to think he'd categorize it correctly if there were appropriate categories.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

 

I'm not serious about removing multi-caches. I just wanted to point out that in addition to adding new cache types, we could also eliminate some, by adding enough attributes. The majority of multi-cache's I have done are what I would call traditionals with multiple waypoints. Go to these coordinates, to get more coordinates to follow. If there is a puzzle, or math, or character substitution involved, they could be mystery/puzzle caches, with a multiple waypoints attribute. 

 

It's been a long-held tradition that with a traditional, you should be able to just navigate to the published coordinates and find a cache. The app even formalises this by saying to only look at the description if you get stuck. I think trying to implement a multi as a traditional with multiple waypoints would cause problems like people stuffing a signed scrap of paper into the first waypoint object and claiming the find (and perhaps adding an NM for a "missing log" as well).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

I cannot climb trees or mountains etc, I have chronic health issues that stop this and I like to head out not having read every minute detail of a cache. I like to head out and see what I find. I am suggesting that when I'm looking at a map, I'd like to not see Tree climbing caches, or be able to tell from afar/by filtering that it's not possible. 

 

There's no need to read "minute details" of a cache.     :)

Without PQs though, you would need to look at D/T ...  but that's just the pop up box when you click on any cache on the map.

Most your finds are 2T and below (but you did do a 3 today ...).    Curious, are you saying you're finding tree-climbing caches rated 2T ?

By the help center, a 2T cache's physical effort needed is "The hike is less than 2 miles (3 km) along well-defined paths with no significant elevation change or overgrowth".

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

 

I think that's incredibly dismissive to sideline people as "statistic driven" just because they're urban/smartphone cachers. 

 

What you're saying that now Geocaching is becoming more accessible to everyone because it's accessible via an app, is that everyone wants an easy find. It's not true, but in a city, it is a lot more limited towards the smaller caches. There is still variety. London has a huge variety. You can still go for a 6-hour walk that includes hills, trees and a beach. Plus, there's a ridiculous amount of history in a city and not in a forest or up a hill, so, there's a lot more limit to what can be written in a description, whereas in a city, every building and street has a story to tell. I love that as I go out geocaching I discover parts of the city I've never found before or connect different parts together because normally I don't walk/bus between the sections, I go underground. It is an adventure, I'm just not looking at grass or leaves.

 

I cannot climb trees or mountains etc, I have chronic health issues that stop this and I like to head out not having read every minute detail of a cache. I like to head out and see what I find. I am suggesting that when I'm looking at a map, I'd like to not see Tree climbing caches, or be able to tell from afar/by filtering that it's not possible. 

 

Also, I just want to say that behind a road sign is anywhere from micro magnetic  - 35mm film pot - small tupperware, plus caches on road signs are not always "behind".

 

You have chosen to ignore six paragraphs of my post which explain how to avoid your problem, and why it should not be a problem in the first place, in order to tell me what you think  I'm saying in the final paragraph, which you seem to interpret as a personal affront.

I've seen too many nasty disputes here to think it is worthwhile adding any more to this thread.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hal-an-tow said:

 

You have chosen to ignore six paragraphs of my post which explain how to avoid your problem, and why it should not be a problem in the first place, in order to tell me what you think  I'm saying in the final paragraph, which you seem to interpret as a personal affront.

I've seen too many nasty disputes here to think it is worthwhile adding any more to this thread.

 

Just because I didn't quote them, doesn't mean I ignored them. You quoted the original post and we've had a lot of discussion since then. Plus you referenced an additional site assuming people have knowledge of them during a discussion of this website. I enjoyed your comment about imagination, I have rather too much too.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

There's no need to read "minute details" of a cache.     :)

Without PQs though, you would need to look at D/T ...  but that's just the pop up box when you click on any cache on the map.

Most your finds are 2T and below (but you did do a 3 today ...).    Curious, are you saying you're finding tree-climbing caches rated 2T ?

By the help center, a 2T cache's physical effort needed is "The hike is less than 2 miles (3 km) along well-defined paths with no significant elevation change or overgrowth".

 

Of course not, I'm saying that I set out along a route and suddenly up pops a tree when everything else has been casual little bisons on fences or small tupperware behind a tree etc. Or we look to see which way has a good little run of caches and then discover that most of them are up trees. They're going to sit on the map providing false optimism. I'd like to be able to look at a map and not see these, or see them differently. As we've all settled on, an attributes search/hide option would be the best way to do this. Some people like climbing trees and actively going looking, others keep feet firmly on the ground. Currently, it put everyone as equally able to climb. I'll only ever have tree climbs logged if I go with someone who can climb or we take a cherry picker.

 

The three terrain was because you had to walk 13m along a country lane to a bus stop or so from the nearest place to you could pause with the car. Would've been a lot longer of a walk in the road without a car. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

Currently, it put everyone as equally able to climb

I don't agree, I would put it as "Currently, it puts the onus on you to check the cache page before you go hunting for it", which might be a bit of a hassle but it's perfectly doable.

 

Having said that I do agree (as do many others) that there should be an ability to search by attributes, and this has been requested many times in the past but never implemented. I did hold out some slight hope that with the advent of the new search map the powers that be might see their way to implementing it, but it doesn't seem so.

 

For the time being your best bet is to check the cache details for anything with a T rating of 4 or 4.5 or above, that ought to get the vast majority of climbs (anything requiring equipment will be a T5 if it's been correctly classified), and is unlikely to throw up many caches with that rating due to long walks or steep hills in the part of the country where you cache.

 

Alternatively you could hook up with a climber and give it a go (there are quite a few in London/SE England).

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JymMoriartyLBL said:

Of course not, I'm saying that I set out along a route and suddenly up pops a tree when everything else has been casual little bisons on fences or small tupperware behind a tree etc. Or we look to see which way has a good little run of caches and then discover that most of them are up trees. They're going to sit on the map providing false optimism. I'd like to be able to look at a map and not see these, or see them differently. As we've all settled on, an attributes search/hide option would be the best way to do this. Some people like climbing trees and actively going looking, others keep feet firmly on the ground. Currently, it put everyone as equally able to climb. I'll only ever have tree climbs logged if I go with someone who can climb or we take a cherry picker.

The basic idea behind this thinking is there's some hideous problem with walking up to a cache -- or even a string of caches -- and realizing it's up in a tree, so you can't get it. I think that's wrong headed. If you're just casually geocaching, it is so simple to just shrug your shoulders and move on to the next cache. If you can't do that, what are you going to do when you can't find a cache that's on the ground? If, on the other hand, you're carefully planning your route and it will be spoiled because this cache is up a tree, then it's equally simple to read the description while you're planning so you can adjust the route before you're disappointed.

 

I'm a little different than you: some trees I can climb, some I can't. So unless they invent a "climbable by dprovan" attribute, I always have to go to GZ before I know whether I'll be able to get the cache. Instead of being disappointed when I can't, I just accept it as one more of many reasons I can't find a cache.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×