Attributes - Should we expect them to be accurate

[+MNTA]

So I was thinking about asking a question on challenge caches and why searching if the subject had already been covered or not I stumbled across attributes.

 

Personally not a big fan of challenge caches requiring attributes, but I go for them anyway. The main reason is many caches don't use them at all even when appropriate. Then you have the guys who use the scuba gear required in the middle of a desert. I see too many fakes.

 

So my question to the forum is should we expect these settings to be accurate and reviewed at the time of publishing? Are all really useful? 

 

Personally I have tried to have them be accurate. I also have used them in multiple occasions to decide if I wish to do that find or not.

 

If these become part of the reviewing process would you expect a NM log to be filed on a PNG listed as a 10KM hike?

 

[+niraD]

27 minutes ago, MNTA said:

So my question to the forum is should we expect these settings to be accurate and reviewed at the time of publishing? Are all really useful? 

 

Accurate? Yes. Cache owners should use attributes to communicate the nature of the cache experience to potential seekers, which means that the attributes used should accurately reflect the nature of the cache experience.

 

Reviewed? No. With very few exceptions (e.g., caches with the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute must be rated T1), attributes are not reviewed.

 

Useful? Sometimes. Sometimes not. Not all attributes have clear definitions that everyone agrees on. For example, what does it mean for a cache to be "Recommended for kids", or "Tourist friendly"?

[+barefootjeff]

57 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Personally not a big fan of challenge caches requiring attributes, but I go for them anyway. The main reason is many caches don't use them at all even when appropriate. Then you have the guys who use the scuba gear required in the middle of a desert. I see too many fakes.

 

You won't like my two challenges then. The first one, GC752YF, requires twenty finds with the takes more than an hour attribute, while the second, GC8DQXK, requires various numbers of attributes (significant hike, cliffs/falling rocks, dangerous animals and scenic view). In both cases the use of those attributes is woven into the theme of the cache (and of course the cache itself has all the respective attributes). While there are no doubt plenty of caches that would qualify for those attributes but don't have them, I haven't come across any that have them incorrectly set. The only time I've really come across fake attributes is on a few puzzle caches where the attributes are part of the puzzle, and in those cases the attributes are clearly fake.

 

57 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Are all really useful? 

 

I learnt the hard way to look at the attributes before I head out into the wild. This is from one of my logs back in 2015:

Quote

There are razor-wire thorn vines in there. I suppose if I'd looked closely at the attributes I would've known that, but I didn't and stupidly became ensnared in them. What's worse, I was in my summer uniform of just board shorts and a hat, and the hat didn't help much!

 

With my balance problem, I pay close attention to the tree climb or difficult climbing attributes and, if I decide to attempt it, usually throw the telescopic ladder and some rope in the back of the car in case I need it. There are people who take their dogs caching with them who will hopefully take note of the no dogs attribute. Cachers with young children ought to be wary of caches with the no kids attribute or ones with various hazard attributes.

 

57 minutes ago, MNTA said:

So my question to the forum is should we expect these settings to be accurate and reviewed at the time of publishing?

 

I would expect, or at least hope, that attributes would be accurate on new caches, especially the safety-related ones, but how would a reviewer know whether they were? Okay, the hiking distance ones might be reasonably obvious from the map, but what about all the others? How would a reviewer know whether dogs are allowed in a reserve? Or if a climb is difficult? Or if a body of water can be waded across or requires a boat? A reviewer might point out an obviously inconsistent attribute and seek clarification before hitting the publish button, but I think it'd be impractical to go beyond that.

 

57 minutes ago, MNTA said:

If these become part of the reviewing process would you expect a NM log to be filed on a PNG listed as a 10KM hike?

 

My simplistic answer would be why not? but these days with NMs effectively being treated as NAs, perhaps not. In the first instance, a message to the CO seeking clarification might be the best approach. Sometimes mistakes happen - I once had the no dogs attribute set on one of my hides when it turned out dogs were allowed in that reserve. I didn't realise our local council had two almost identical signs listing prohibited activities, only one version didn't include dogs. A cacher queried it so I immediately drove out there (at night) to check and sure enough I was wrong. Easily fixed.

 

But if I saw a puzzle cache with the P&G and >10km attributes both set, I'd immediately suspect they were part of the puzzle.

Edited April 2, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The first one, GC752YF, requires twenty finds with the takes more than an hour attribute, while the second, GC8DQXK, requires various numbers of attributes

I qualify for the first, but not quite the second. I fail by four finds.

	User has 36 finds (40 needed).Filters:( terrains (4) )
	User has found 94 caches of type "Significant hike" (20 required).
	User has found 145 caches of type "Cliffs/falling rocks nearby" (50 required).
	User has found 2043 caches of type "Dangerous animals" (50 required).
	User has found 2451 caches of type "Scenic view" (100 required).

[+L0ne.R]

I find challenge caches bothersome for all the poor playing behavior they spawn.   As long as challenge caches exist I doubt the practice of adding bogus attributes will stop. 

[+hal-an-tow]

5 hours ago, MNTA said:

So my question to the forum is should we expect these settings to be accurate and reviewed at the time of publishing?

 

 

Should we expect accurate attributes ? Yes. Do we get them ?  Hmm, varies with cache owner.

A certain type of comedian thinks it's funny to do something like adding 'no snowmobiles allowed' to an urban magnetic nano , or random spurious icons because there's a challenge cache to qualify for, or to attract some stats obsessives who want to complete the set . I don't often look at the attributes in isolation, but rather as part of the total information on the cache page when I read it in preparation for a trip out.

 

The only time I do regularly use a specific attribute as a finder is in a GSAK filter to exclude tree climbing caches (I'm a coward)

The main time I think about the rest of them is when I set a cache, and want to give as full and accurate amount of information as possible for everyone who looks at the page. Then I sit in front of my computer trying to remember if the gates along the walk to the cache I'm working on could be negotiated by a child's stroller, or if the stiles have dog friendly pass throughs ? I've no idea if anyone actually uses the attributes , but I like my cache pages to be as good and informative  as I can make them.

 

I don't believe attributes can all be reviewed at time of publishing , how could any cache setter provide evidence to a reviewer for most of them ? Many are an opinion (e.g. family friendly, scenic view, ) seasonal (e.g. may require wading, dangerous animals ) or things which may change without notice, and are entirely outside the cache owner's control (pretty much all of the 'facilities' section.) Reviewers job (unpaid) is to ensure a listing on Groundspeak complies with the Groundspeak  rules, those rules must be as clear and unlikely to leave room for dispute and disagreement as possible or their (unpaid) work becomes too much for volunteers to want to do.   Beyond the Groundspeak rules , the listing accuracy is down to the cache owner, and it reflects their attitude.

 

5 hours ago, MNTA said:

If these become part of the reviewing process would you expect a NM log to be filed on a PNG listed as a 10KM hike?

 

As I said, I don't think it would be possible for all of the attributes to be part of the reviewing process . Neither should a patently silly attribute be a cause of a NM, more an indication of a patently silly CO.  I don't dislike challenge caches (I own a few, and have found a few too ) but I think it was a mistake by Groundspeak to allow challenges based on attributes, as they are something which can be easily manipulated by cache setters, with just as much ease as they could set , for example, caches with names beginning with  'Z'  for those (no longer allowed) challenges based on cache name alphabet finds.

 

Remove the ability to set new attribute challenge caches, and (apart from the unfunny jokers) there's little reason for spurious attributes.

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

I use only a few attributes; usually only bus, parking, bike and dog. I rarely look at them; mainly because they don't appear on my Etrex30. The D&T rating is much more important to me. (And why I get disappointed at COs who won't rate caches correctly.) Some COs have different interpretations of attributes too. A swimming icon could mean that swimming is required to reach the cache, or that swimming is available to enjoy (rather like a view).

[+L0ne.R]

I use attributes a lot when filtering to find caches that match my style of caching.  I tend to use mostly the 'Attributes to Exclude' section. Example:

In the winter I'll use the 'Attributes to include' snowflake attribute (but then I have to read the description, hint and a few logs to see if it's actually snow-friendly). 

 

So I appreciate when COs use attributes as intended, as a tool for finders to choose cache experiences they would prefer to pursue.

 

[+schmittfamily]

I expect attributes to be accurate - not necessary useful but at least accurate.

It doesn't bug me when someone tacks on an obvious attribute - like "No Snowmobiles" for a library cache.

It is true. 

 

The one that bothers me is the "dogs allowed" attribute.

If a cache says "dogs allowed", it better be in a location that you can and would want to bring your dog.   

I see that attribute slapped on caches in a sea of 3 foot high grass or in parks with no dogs allowed signs posted.   

Edited April 2, 2020 by schmittfamily

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, MNTA said:

So my question to the forum is should we expect these settings to be accurate and reviewed at the time of publishing? Are all really useful? 

 

If these become part of the reviewing process would you expect a NM log to be filed on a PNG listed as a 10KM hike?

 

 Curious how you feel a Reviewer would know how accurate they are.    You do know they don't personally "inspect" hides, right ?   

Something as simple as "poison ivy"  often changes in time.  

Expecting a Reviewer to be able to see-into every caches history in advance just ain't gonna happen.  Some are dogs, not seers.   

 

I prefer that attributes are as accurate as possible when placed , yet realize that many change in time.  

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

A certain type of comedian thinks it's funny to do something like adding 'no snowmobiles allowed' to an urban magnetic nano

That used to be more of a thing here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm not too worried about that example though. Technically, it's true, because the land managers would take a very dim view of geocachers riding snowmobiles along sidewalks and trails and snow-free open spaces of any kind. And no one who is actually searching for snowmobile caches (or non-snowmobile caches) is going to be inconvenienced by the use of the attribute here.

 

There's a more legitimate gripe with the way desert numbers trails used the "scuba" attribute, which was a real inconvenience for those actually trying to identify the rare scuba caches. Or your example of the "dogs allowed" attribute being used in places that don't allow dogs.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

I don't dislike challenge caches (I own a few, and have found a few too ) but I think it was a mistake by Groundspeak to allow challenges based on attributes, as they are something which can be easily manipulated by cache setters, with just as much ease as they could set , for example, caches with names beginning with  'Z'  for those (no longer allowed) challenges based on cache name alphabet finds.

 

My own two attribute-based challenges have been well received by the local community (7 FPs from 14 finds and 2 FPs from 2 finds respectively), with good feedback in the logs and at events. Neither have led to a plethora of false attributes. Anyway there are plenty of qualifying caches available for those who are interested and the challenge caches themselves are more physically challenging than most of the qualifying ones, so what would be the point of false attributes?

 

But those aside, there's one attribute-based challenge I've had my eye on ever since it was published five years ago. GC5KEY1, the Scenic Adventurer Challenge, is to me the epitomy of challenge caches, something for me to aspire to even though I'm probably too old now to have much hope of qualifying. In that 5 years it's had 6 finds, all giving FPs, with the logs and photos making great reading. If this is the sort of challenge cache that should be outlawed, well all I can do is just shake my head and quietly walk away.

[+MNTA]

10 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

 Curious how you feel a Reviewer would know how accurate they are.    You do know they don't personally "inspect" hides, right ?   

Something as simple as "poison ivy"  often changes in time.  

Expecting a Reviewer to be able to see-into every caches history in advance just ain't gonna happen.  Some are dogs, not seers.   

 

I prefer that attributes are as accurate as possible when placed , yet realize that many change in time.  

 

The last cache I placed the reviewer asked for details of the hide. In that conversation I propose talking about the attributes assigned.

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

The last cache I placed the reviewer asked for details of the hide. In that conversation I propose talking about the attributes assigned.

 

The reviewers probably have a fair number of caches to get through each time they log on to process the queue, and my reviewer notes run to several paragraphs anyway with the stuff the reviewer is likely to want to know, like permissions, access to the waypoints and GZ, the way the cache is hidden, the container type including its volume, detailed solutions if it's a mystery or field-puzzle multi and, for challenge caches, all the extra stuff needed for those. Then there are photos of the hiding place, the container and how it's hidden, plus anything else that will help him get a good idea of what my cache entails, including a photo showing why I want to bring cachers to the location. I doubt he wants to wade through an explanation of why I've set the dangerous animals, cliffs/falling rocks, not recommended at night, no dogs, not recommended for kids, 1-10km hike and takes more than an hour attributes, or why I didn't set all the ones I didn't set, since none of that impacts his decision whether or not to publish it. At the end of the day he just wants to be satisfied that it meets all the relevant guidelines with no obvious errors and move on to the next one in the queue.

[+L0ne.R]

11 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

The last cache I placed the reviewer asked for details of the hide. In that conversation I propose talking about the attributes assigned.

 

I remember a time when my reviewer asked that I pick at least 1 attribute when submitting my cache hide. It was easy enough to pick 3 relevant attributes. I just hadn't considered adding attributes at the time.  I understood why the reviewer asked, it helps the community filter for caches they want to do. 

[+TerraViators]

You can expect anything.  However, what you'll often receive is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Also, some attributes are vague.  Takes less than an hour?  Based on what?  A geocacher with one leg may take much long to arrive at ground zero.

[+coachstahly]

I would hope them to be accurate but to expect that they be accurate implies that everyone knows how to use them properly.  Adding to any confusion is the occasional type of regional variation that might occur when assigning attributes. 

[+ecanderson]

5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I would hope them to be accurate but to expect that they be accurate implies that everyone knows how to use them properly.  Adding to any confusion is the occasional type of regional variation that might occur when assigning attributes. 

That would be especially true regarding "Available (or not) in Winter".  In some colder climate regions, that means there's no access to the area.  In most others, it means that if there's snow on the ground, you're likely to have a problem.  In our area, it could be either depending upon the elevation.  Down here on the 5280 flats, it most often indicates a cache on the ground.