audio / no audio attribute

[+webmicha]

A lot of geocaches are including audio functions. They might be used to provide informations for coordinates or just instructions  where to go or what to do. And sometimes are necessary audio informations embedded in videos. In all this cases, when no alternative is given, deaf geocachers are not able to play such caches. This is annoying if they travel long ways for a high rated geocache and have then to realize, that audio capabilities are a must have.

We all know about the attributes, geocaching.com provides to cache owners to characterize a geocache. There are well known attributes like "climbing gear required" or "flashlight / UV light required". We also know the attribute "wheelchair accessible" which indicates if people with special needs can make it or not. 

Following this, it makes sense to provide also an attribute to show if audio capabilities are required or not.  
 

I personally know some deaf geocachers and played some geocaches with them, it is a completely different experience. So I really understand their wish for an additional attribute. As the number of deaf geocachers is increasing within the community, it is our responsibilty to help them not only as geocache owners, but also as the platform operator. An "audio" attribute would be helpful for planning, as we all do so with the other attributes. Not to forget that search would also be improved.

Some people has started an online petition for that, in my opionion it's better to address such things directly, so I wrote that request down here.  

Thanks for your attention and a factual discussion.

Edited March 30, 2022 by webmicha

[+SvenGlyxpilz]

This would be very helpful for deaf geocachers.
It's just too bad, if you play a multi and the last waypoint needs some audio capabilities and can't open the final to reach the logbook.

[+arisoft]

While you are waiting for the attribute you could start a public list of caches not suitable for deaf geocachers. It could be a better solution at first because you can add any published cache to the list immediately. A new attribute will take forever to be useful because it requires the attention of every cache owner.

[+ChriBli]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

While you are waiting for the attribute you could start a public list of caches not suitable for deaf geocachers. It could be a better solution at first because you can add any published cache to the list immediately. A new attribute will take forever to be useful because it requires the attention of every cache owner.

I don't understand that. It is usually not obvious from the cache description that hearing is required, how is someone else than the cache owner supposed to be able to tell? And monitoring all published geocaches for possible hearing requirements seems like a daunting task.

 

About the attribute, it would rather be like "UV required" than "wheelchair accessible". For the relatively small fraction of geocaches that requires hearing it wouldn't be too much of a burden on the cache owner to add an attribute just as they do when UV is required. Agreed that not many will go back and add it to already published caches.

[+DocBrain]

It's not necessarily just listening words and cues (there are some apps that help this problem), but also listening acoustic codes (telephone, sound wave, music) or directional hearing. Most audio cues are difficult to decipher. So it would be good not only for deaf geocachers but also for hearing geocachers to introduce the attribute "hearing required" for everyone.

[+thebruce0]

If the attribute were added, it would need to be officially announced and sent to cache owners so they all know about it and be encouraged to add the attribute if it's relevant. That won't cover every instance, but it'll be far more effective than just adding the attribute and hoping people will start seeing and using it.  Reviewers might even have to be given the goahead to require the addition if they know that a cache has an audio element within its puzzle or gadget, during the review process. It'd be a large undertaking to add that attribute effectively, for sure.

[Keystone]

24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 Reviewers might even have to be given the goahead to require the addition if they know that a cache has an audio element within its puzzle or gadget, during the review process.

 

Yikes! If that happens, I'd need to start a Change.org petition for another 10% pay raise.  This reaction is based on existing experience with the UV light attribute, which is mandatory for any cache using that technology.  "But I don't want to add that attribute, it will give away the surprise.  You are ruining geocaching, Keystone.  Your office is where fun goes to die."  (Yes, those are actual quotes, but not necessarily all associated with the UV light attribute.)

 

I have no problem with this suggestion as an optional attribute.  It is helpful in the same sense as "Boat Required" or "Tree Climbing Required" and other similar attributes that help geocachers filter for the caches they like to find (and be prepared for) and to filter out caches they don't wish to find.

[+thebruce0]

Oh I'm not advocating for more work for the reviewer, lol

Just thinking that if the attribute is considered for accessibility, it may be considered similar to wheelchair accessible and come with additional requirements for its use, being different than other 'informational' attributes... just thinking out loud.

[Keystone]

The accessibility attribute is hard-coded into the website's cache submission process and the reviewer toolset, thanks to awesome behind-the-scenes updates by Geocaching HQ. No longer any extra work for Reviewers.  I don't see that being possible for an audio attribute.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Minor technical comment, the last time a negative attribute was created was 2011.  I doubt a new negative attribute is  coming.  Positive only  makes sense for this. Some small fraction of caches need "Audio", and everything else does not.  A negative version would just become stats fodder.

[+ChriBli]

27 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Minor technical comment, the last time a negative attribute was created was 2011.  I doubt a new negative attribute is  coming.  Positive only  makes sense for this. Some small fraction of caches need "Audio", and everything else does not.  A negative version would just become stats fodder.

Yes, that's what I meant above. It should be like the "UV required" attribute - "hearing required". There is of course no negative of the UV attribute either.

 

10 hours ago, Keystone said:

[...] the UV light attribute, which is mandatory for any cache using that technology.  "But I don't want to add that attribute, it will give away the surprise.  You are ruining geocaching, Keystone.  Your office is where fun goes to die."  (Yes, those are actual quotes, but not necessarily all associated with the UV light attribute.)

 

I have no problem with this suggestion as an optional attribute.  It is helpful in the same sense as "Boat Required" or "Tree Climbing Required" and other similar attributes that help geocachers filter for the caches they like to find (and be prepared for) and to filter out caches they don't wish to find.

I was not aware that the UV attribute was mandatory. I can't see why anyone would not use it if UV is actually required. I would not want to subject the seekers of my cache to the "fun" surprise that UV is required when they didn't bring their UV lamp. The same would go for hearing. You don't want to bring hearing-impaired geocachers to a cache where hearing is required, that would only cause grief.

[+SvenGlyxpilz]

On 3/30/2022 at 4:41 PM, arisoft said:

While you are waiting for the attribute you could start a public list of caches not suitable for deaf geocachers. It could be a better solution at first because you can add any published cache to the list immediately. A new attribute will take forever to be useful because it requires the attention of every cache owner.

Cindy started a list like suggested: https://coord.info/BMAWK5V
Obviously most chaches on this list are in Germany, as she promoted it in her (mostly German) social media community.
Any worldwide suggestions for this list are welcome

[+ChriBli]

45 minutes ago, SvenGlyxpilz said:

Cindy started a list like suggested: https://coord.info/BMAWK5V
Obviously most chaches on this list are in Germany, as she promoted it in her (mostly German) social media community.
Any worldwide suggestions for this list are welcome

So the process is, if someone notices (or places) a cache where hearing is required, they would notify Cindy (presumably the owner of the list) and she would add it? This would be way more efficient if one could have public lists where everyone could add, wiki-style. Unfortunately there are no such lists.

 

I actually had to look into what the difference is between shareable and public list. Wouldn't it actually be better to have this kind of list public? It would still be accessible to anyone having the link. It would also be accessible via the owner's profile, which would be inconsequential. But the advantage is that when a cache is on a public list, that list will appear in the sidebar of the cache listing. Kind of like a "hearing required" attribute, only more difficult to notice. Just a thought.

[+SvenGlyxpilz]

The Process of adding Caches to the list is quite complicated - if there are many, she will not be able to handle it... 

That's one reason why an attribute is a quite better solution.

[+arisoft]

49 minutes ago, SvenGlyxpilz said:

The Process of adding Caches to the list is quite complicated - if there are many, she will not be able to handle it... 

That's one reason why an attribute is a quite better solution.

 

I don't understand. You open cache page and click couple times with mouse to add cache to the list. How it is easier to add an attribute?

[+Bl4ckH4wkGER]

I will not make any statements about the feasibility of this request or the impact this may or may not have. There are simply too many open questions.

What I can say though is that while there are likely to be deaf/hard of hearing geocachers across the globe, the density of caches that use audio equipment is comparatively significantly higher in Germany than in any other region. This is similar to the love for fishing rod caches (biltema caches/ caches hanging high up in a tree to be retrieved via a fishing rod) in Germany. On that background, the benefit of such an attribute might be geographically much more limited than the petitioners think. 

I would argue that the public List can be great interim solution. As far as the process for that is concerned I am not sure why it is deemed "quite complicated":

• A player passionate about the subject volunteers some of their time to curate the list
• Other players can send them GC codes & an explanation of how the cache uses audio features
• Keep track of the GC-codes, ideally in a comma separated list
• In regular intervals, use the bulk add functionality to add the caches to the List (duplicates are not a problem as they will be automatically excluded)
• Rinse and repeat

[+MartyBartfast]

22 minutes ago, Bl4ckH4wkGER said:

What I can say though is that while there are likely to be deaf/hard of hearing geocachers across the globe, the density of caches that use audio equipment is comparatively significantly higher in Germany than in any other region.

I would agree that from what I've seen the number of such caches isn't significant enough to make it a problem that needs solving, though maybe it is in Germany.

 

Having said that I don't see how a public list would be that much of a help, a deaf cacher wouldn't be able to do a search for caches within 30km, which aren't on the list (or more likely multiple lists if there are more than 1000) which would be possible with attributes (allbeit not necessarily via the current Groundspeak search interface).

 

[+ChriBli]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I don't understand. You open cache page and click couple times with mouse to add cache to the list. How it is easier to add an attribute?

An attribute would be added by the cache owner when they create the cache listing. The cache owner knows if the attribute applies to their new cache. With the list, the cache owner needs to know about the list and whom to contact about adding the new cache to it, or someone else must notice that this newly published cache should go on the list. The list owner may actually get multiple notifications for the same cache. Then the list owner must add all these caches to the list, until they get tired of doing it. Sum total, more complicated.