[Feature Request] Introduce an Attribute for Biltema / Fishing Rod Caches

[+Max 1996]

The title is self-explanatory. These types of caches where you have to bring a long pole or fishing rod to get them out of a tree have become extremely common. However, they are a type of cache that requires a very specific type of equipment that can not be easily distinguished from other caches, as there's no uniform guideline as to what D/T rating they should be. Some owners interpret them as D5 ("You have to bring a specialised tool"), others as T5 ("They are high up") and others just rate them whatever, since they judge the method of hiding as just an inconvenience ("I always have my fishing pole in my car anyways").

I don't want to go into the pros and cons of these types of caches, the problem is that there is no reliable way of filtering them when planning a cache tour. Sure, many are tagged with the "Special tool required" attribute, but this is unspecific. There are other caches, i.e. requiring a UV-light, that also have this tag. While can consistently carry a UV-light with me when caching, carrying a fishing pole is not possible for every caching trip. Caches requiring a UV-light are a lot less common, yet they already have their own attribute. Many other already existing attributes are even more specific.

This should not be too hard to do, as other attributes have already been released in recent times.

 

EDIT: When saying fishing pole, I was translating the german word "Angelcache". Generally, these types of caches are found using a rigid telescopic pole with a fixed hook at the end, not an actual fishing rod. I would also like to highlight the excellent suggestion by NiraD for a potential implementation of the attribute:

 

Quote

 Pole required.

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Max 1996

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, Max 1996 said:

The title is self-explanatory. These types of caches where you have to bring a long pole or fishing rod to get them out of a tree have become extremely common.

 

Odd, when we look, they're mostly only attached micros, not grabbed with a "fishing rod". So I don't feel they're "extremely" common at all.

We've yet to find one unattached on purpose...   That makes them T4 to 5.

Can't tell you how many multis we've had to can, or go back to stages because somebody couldn't climb, instead tore the micro from it's hidden spot, now "missing", and waiting for  maintenance to finish.

But, including an attribute to say that you only have to pluck a micro from a tree to finish would come in handy.   

Knowing you simply pluck the "cache" away, maybe a Reviewer would question the "T" rating for accuracy too.      

[+dprovan]

I don't see a justification for any attribute more specific than "special tool required". I've only seen a handful of caches like that, and i think the specific tool -- fishing pole, grabber, ladder -- was different for each one, so even if I wanted to identify the ones I've seen, i couldn't say anything more specific than "a special tool" even though they all generally fit your description.

 

The d5 rating is the main tip, and in most cases, I wouldn't object to the cache being an unknown type, too, so anyone looking for it reads the explanation of what's required for retrieval.

[+Max 1996]

Quote

I've only seen a handful of caches like that

Quote

So I don't feel they're "extremely" common at all.

 

You both seem to be Americans, I can't judge what your caches are like. Let me tell you, in Germany they are very common. In my home town, there are at least 30-40, in larger cities like Hamburg, there are entire trails consisting of nothing but these caches. They are not climbable - usually they are hung high up on trees that don't allow climbing.

 

It's interesting to me that you both arrive at different conclusions, what the correct rating (D or T) should be - that is precisely the problem. This is not a solution, everyone rates this type of cache differently, even though they are mostly the same, and the reviewers don't enforce a consistent standard.

 

They have been around for years, and they are not going anywhere - just give me a consistent way to filter them. Adding an attribute won't hurt you, if you don't encounter these caches, that's fine for you.

[+barefootjeff]

24 minutes ago, Max 1996 said:

It's interesting to me that you both arrive at different conclusions, what the correct rating (D or T) should be - that is precisely the problem. This is not a solution, everyone rates this type of cache differently, even though they are mostly the same, and the reviewers don't enforce a consistent standard.

 

The regional wiki for here says this:

Pole "Fishing" caches

 

GCHQ has advised that a fishing "pole"  is not considered to be specialised equipment and, as the finder is standing on the ground beneath the cache, the terrain rating is that of the land traversed to get to the finders position.

 

and this:

 

A tree fishing geocache should have both attributes "no tree climbing required" and "special tool required" to allow finders to search for, and know what to expect at GZ.

 

There are none of these around where I live, of course, but there are some further afield, enough for a few of my friends up north to have acquired poles. Sure, the "special tool required" attribute can apply to many things, but usually there's something in the description to say what specific tool is needed. Maybe this vagueness is a good thing if this encourages people to read the descriptions.

[+The Leprechauns]

I've found more than 1,000 caches rated T3 or higher, and more than 1,000 caches rated D3 or higher, across 45 states in the USA.  I have never seen one single cache that required a fishing pole to hook a container from up in a tree.

 

A new attribute needs to be relevant worldwide.  I would not look forward to explaining what "biltema" means to geocachers who are curious about when to use such an attribute.

 

I like the idea of using the "no tree climbing required" and "special tool required" attributes in combination.  This would allow filtering out biltema caches where those attributes are properly applied, without sweeping in too many non-biltema caches.

[+niraD]

21 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

I've found more than 1,000 caches rated T3 or higher, and more than 1,000 caches rated D3 or higher, across 45 states in the USA.  I have never seen one single cache that required a fishing pole to hook a container from up in a tree.

I have nowhere near that kind of count, but I've seen elevated caches where the CO expected seekers to climb to reach the cache location (generally reflected in the cache's terrain rating), and I've seen elevated caches where the CO expected seekers to use some kind of tool to retrieve the cache while standing on the ground (generally reflected in the cache's difficulty rating).

 

I've never used a fishing pole for the latter though. I used to have a fruit picking tool on an extension pole, which worked very nicely for such caches. Alas, it didn't make the trip when we moved across the country a couple years ago.

[+MartyBartfast]

5 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

I've found more than 1,000 caches rated T3 or higher, and more than 1,000 caches rated D3 or higher, across 45 states in the USA.  I have never seen one single cache that required a fishing pole to hook a container from up in a tree.

 

A new attribute needs to be relevant worldwide. 

 

But how many have you found requiring a UV light? (out of the 8,227 placed world wide), or requiring scuba gear (8,077)  and there's a specific attribute for both those.

FWIW I've found at least 58 pole caches (but difficult to be sure as there's no attribute to search by  ), but only 1 with the Scuba attribute (which I walked to) and 3 with the UV attribute.

These are fairly common in the UK, and it seems to be almost contagious such that once some appear in an area there will be others to follow,  which suggests people like them, so I reckon once some get hidden in the USA more would follow and they would become more widespread over there.

 

Having said all that I'm not sure adding a specific attribute would be worth the coding effort, particularly given outstanding issues waiting to be fixed.

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by MartyBartfast

[+Max 1996]

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

GCHQ has advised that a fishing "pole"  is not considered to be specialised equipment and, as the finder is standing on the ground beneath the cache, the terrain rating is that of the land traversed to get to the finders position.

 

and this:

 

A tree fishing geocache should have both attributes "no tree climbing required" and "special tool required" to allow finders to search for, and know what to expect at GZ.

 

Sure, the "special tool required" attribute can apply to many things, but usually there's something in the description to say what specific tool is needed. Maybe this vagueness is a good thing if this encourages people to read the descriptions.

 

• The definition of the local wiki seems irrelevant to me, no offence. As I said, there is no consistency in Germany and many other countries, and as long as GC.com doesn't add a clear standard that is then retroactively enforced by the reviewers, there won't be. Also, if GCHQ doesn't consider an 8m telescopic pole, that is specifically bought and used for geocaching, specialised equipment (ignoring how little sense that makes) then the special tool required attribute shouldn't apply, right?
• If the point of attributes is to get people to read the description, then why do attributes for UV-lights or wireless beacons already exist? There are less caches of either type around. Additionally, the description does not help me if I want to filter a cache type when planning a caching-trip, which is why I want the attribute.

[+Max 1996]

6 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

I've found more than 1,000 caches rated T3 or higher, and more than 1,000 caches rated D3 or higher, across 45 states in the USA.  I have never seen one single cache that required a fishing pole to hook a container from up in a tree.

 

A new attribute needs to be relevant worldwide.  I would not look forward to explaining what "biltema" means to geocachers who are curious about when to use such an attribute.

 

I like the idea of using the "no tree climbing required" and "special tool required" attributes in combination.  This would allow filtering out biltema caches where those attributes are properly applied, without sweeping in too many non-biltema caches.

 

• Prior to creating this post, I was not aware that this type of cache does not seem to be as common in the USA. I suspect that, if this were the case, we would already have such an attribute. However, what is your definition for world wide relevancy? Does something have to exist is USA to be a world wide issue? I know that these caches exist in many countries in europe, and while I have mostly found caches in Germany, here they make up to about 5% of all caches in some regions. Is this not relevant?
• Obviously, the attribute should not be called "Biltema cache" but something like "Fishing rod required", with an correspondig icon that makes the application obvious.
• As mentioned in my original post, I want a way to filter this type of cache when I'm on a tour without a fishing pole. Having to rely on owners adding these two attributes would be very unreliable, especially since I don't want to filter out other "special tool required" caches, which are often some of the best around.

[+Max 1996]

50 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Having said all that I'm not sure adding a specific attribute would be worth the coding effort, particularly given outstanding issues waiting to be fixed.

 

Given that they have added attributes fairly recently, so one can hope that it should not be too complicated. I would also take this change over most other issues, this would be a definite quality of life improvement.

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, Max 1996 said:

The definition of the local wiki seems irrelevant to me, no offence. As I said, there is no consistency in Germany and many other countries, and as long as GC.com doesn't add a clear standard that is then retroactively enforced by the reviewers, there won't be. Also, if GCHQ doesn't consider an 8m telescopic pole, that is specifically bought and used for geocaching, specialised equipment (ignoring how little sense that makes) then the special tool required attribute shouldn't apply, right?

 

Sorry, I was just trying to help. The information in the Australian regional wiki said it's based on advice from GCHQ and I'd assumed that advice would apply globally. Obviously not.

 

As far as the definition of "Specialised Equipment" goes, again apologies for quoting from the Australian wiki but this is their distinction between specialised equipment (T5 rating) and a special tool (attribute):

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT

These are things requiring training to use, safety equipment such as helmets or life jackets, and are not part of the caching tool kit you can carry easily, or the tool kit the average geocacher would carry most of the time. Boats, large ladders, and rope climbing or abseiling equipment are examples. For example, a technical tree climb requiring ropes etc. would be a T5. But a free climb without the need for special equipment would be 4.5 or lower (often much lower). Once you’re up there if it’s hard to open or find the cache then that would be reflected in the D rating. A pole cache (tree fishing) on the other hand, would be generally be low Terrain in most cases if it’s easy to get to the position you need to be at, but higher Difficulty to reflect a tricky manipulation.

[+Max 1996]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

These are things requiring training to use, safety equipment such as helmets or life jackets, and are not part of the caching tool kit you can carry easily, or the tool kit the average geocacher would carry most of the time. Boats, large ladders, and rope climbing or abseiling equipment are examples. For example, a technical tree climb requiring ropes etc. would be a T5. But a free climb without the need for special equipment would be 4.5 or lower (often much lower). Once you’re up there if it’s hard to open or find the cache then that would be reflected in the D rating. A pole cache (tree fishing) on the other hand, would be generally be low Terrain in most cases if it’s easy to get to the position you need to be at, but higher Difficulty to reflect a tricky manipulation.

 

Thank you, that is helpful and actually the way I would handle the D/T ratings for fishing rod caches as well if it were up to me. Unfortunately, as the official guidelines are very vague, people just make their own interpretations. Also this ambiguity is often used to create easy-to-find caches for matrix completion, notably some owners will switch between D5 and T5 for fishing rod caches depending on the requirement. There's also the "easy 5/5", just hide a mystery cache where you have to find the location of a picture with a fishing rod final.

[+The Leprechauns]

4 hours ago, Max 1996 said:

a clear standard that is then retroactively enforced by the reviewers

 

Good luck with that.  Would you also like reviewers to enforce your vision of Difficulty and Terrain ratings for these caches?  They'd probably want to double their pay before agreeing to either.

[+The Leprechauns]

4 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

But how many have you found requiring a UV light? (out of the 8,227 placed world wide), or requiring scuba gear (8,077)  and there's a specific attribute for both those.

 

I've found 114 caches with the Scuba Gear attribute, yet the last time I went scuba diving was 1995.  This illustrates a different point against adding attributes:  the rare ones get misused, for a number of reasons including challenge cache qualification.  People can't even use the "tree climbing required" attribute correctly.  They see a picture of a tree, think "my cache is in a forest/tree stump/hole in a tree," and apply the attribute.  If people see a picture of a fishing pole as a new attribute, some would similarly think "my cache is near a lake/pond/river where people can go fishing," and apply the attribute.

[+niraD]

5 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

If people see a picture of a fishing pole as a new attribute, some would similarly think "my cache is near a lake/pond/river where people can go fishing," and apply the attribute.

Maybe the icon could be a pole with a hook, and a small container hanging from the hook.

[+Max 1996]

36 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

 

Good luck with that.  Would you also like reviewers to enforce your vision of Difficulty and Terrain ratings for these caches?  They'd probably want to double their pay before agreeing to either.

 

It put this as an hypothetical, as in: As long as reviewers don't actively enforce a consistent rating, and do this for the many caches that already exist, there will not be consistency. Hence, any attempt to designate and filter fishing pole caches by D/T rating alone is doomed to failure.

 

I am not advocating for this type of enforcement, however I would like to see some consistent definition in the guidelines from GCHQ. The definition in the post by barefootjeff seems the most sensible to me, but that is not the issue of this post.

 

Honestly, I don't really understand why you are against this. The reasons you gave seem to be against a lot of the less common attributes in general, something you could just easily ignore.

[+Hügh]

I generally agree with the Australian wiki's definition of "specialized equipment": pieces of safety equipment that require training from a certified professional to operate. They deserve attributes because you cannot simply jerry-rig a tool together from things in your trunk. You need to come prepared or prepared to give up, or else you will die.

 

Admittedly, this does not explain the existence of the:

 

6 hours ago, Max 1996 said:

why do attributes for UV-lights or wireless beacons already exist?

 

but either way, "attributes were created for some things in the past" isn't exactly the strongest argument for creating more. What about:

• Ladder required
• Lock-picking kit required
• Screwdriver/drill required
• Magnet required
• Non-standard logbook (ie. scratching name into wood, CD, or other non-paper materials; need the right tool for that!)
• QR-code scanning device required
• Internet connection required
• Writing implement required
• Geocache-finding skills required

Where do you draw the line?

[+KRON family]

The line can be drawn according to the number of uses.

Number of caches within a 13km radius of HC requiring:

- fishing rod: 223

- flashlight (already has an attribute): 12

--------------- <-- line

- QR reader: 5

- magnet: 1

- screwdriver: 1

The rope/ladder is not included in the list, because these caches have a terrain of 5, which is already visible after clicking the cache on the map.

 

But I don't think the attribute is the solution. Yes, attribute can be helpful for players who want to search for biltema during home preparation. But I'm looking for caches in the current area behind the wheel of a van and I only open the listing when I'm standing on the coordinates and I can't find it.

I think the ideal solution would be a special geocache type (and icon) for this type of cache. Not only because of their number, or because of the need for special equipment. But because when the cache is in a stump, in a cavity, in a museum, in a rock where you have to abseil, or it is diving; whether you need a QR reader to solve, internet to solve, or a screwdriver to open; you always have to get yourself to the cache. In this case, you need to get the cache to you, with the help of a fishing rod. This is as big a difference as between traditional and virtual caches.

[+Hügh]

1 hour ago, KRON family said:

ideal solution would be a special geocache type (and icon)

 

I think you probably know what I am going to say.

 

(Challenge Caches?)

 

They aren't giving us that, so they are certainly aren't going to give us this. An attribute, maybe, but still... I mean, it took them 5 years to get the Challenge attribute figured out.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Hügh

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, KRON family said:

The line can be drawn according to the number of uses.

Number of caches within a 13km radius of HC requiring:

- fishing rod: 223

- flashlight (already has an attribute): 12

--------------- <-- line

- QR reader: 5

- magnet: 1

- screwdriver: 1

The rope/ladder is not included in the list, because these caches have a terrain of 5, which is already visible after clicking the cache on the map.

 

 

It depends on where you are. In my region:

 

fishing rod: 0 (there used to be one but it required a magnet on a line to fish something out of a hollow post so not a biltema)

flashlight: 11 (5 of them mine)

tree climbing: 6

special tool: 5 (things like QR reader, tape measure, magnetic compass, etc.)

power trail: 0

 

All the T5s in this region require a boat because we have lots of waterways with good places to hide boat-access caches. No other forms of specialised equipment are currently needed for our caches.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, KRON family said:

I think the ideal solution would be a special geocache type (and icon) for this type of cache. Not only because of their number, or because of the need for special equipment. But because when the cache is in a stump, in a cavity, in a museum, in a rock where you have to abseil, or it is diving; whether you need a QR reader to solve, internet to solve, or a screwdriver to open; you always have to get yourself to the cache. In this case, you need to get the cache to you, with the help of a fishing rod. This is as big a difference as between traditional and virtual caches.

 

Biltemas aren't unique in having to "bring the cache to you". What about the ones where you have to fill something with water to make the cache float to the top, lower the cache down from a tree using the supplied rope or fish the cache out of a hollow post using a magnet on a line? Should these each have their own cache type too?

[+Goldenwattle]

On 6/19/2022 at 5:56 AM, dprovan said:

The d5 rating is the main tip,

I wish they did have that rating, so I wouldn't bother to go near them. Many are very lowly rated and I find that annoying when I turn up expecting a 1.5 or 2 terrain, and can't reach it without specialised equipment.

[+fizzymagic]

On 6/18/2022 at 7:38 PM, The Leprechauns said:

I've found more than 1,000 caches rated T3 or higher, and more than 1,000 caches rated D3 or higher, across 45 states in the USA.  I have never seen one single cache that required a fishing pole to hook a container from up in a tree.

 

I have only seen them two places:  Near Yuba City, CA, where one particular hider became quite enamored with them, and in a geo-art thingie in Texas.

 

I agree with your point that the attributes, properly used, can identify these hides unambiguously.

[+KRON family]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It depends on where you are.

It can also appear in your country. As our biltema cache hiders say, "I bought an amazing telescopic pole for several thousand crowns (Czech currency), I want to use it more than just once. That's the only reason I hide another biltema cache." So once it starts, it spreads like Covid.

 

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Biltemas aren't unique in having to "bring the cache to you". What about the ones where you have to fill something with water to make the cache float to the top...

We also have one nearby (but really only one). Like a cache that requires a screwdriver, both are listed as mystery cache on coordinates. I think this is also a good idea, because players who want to look for caches will ignore it. Unlike this - it looks like a drive-in cache, but it's a biltema.

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

...lower the cache down from a tree using the supplied rope or fish the cache out of a hollow post using a magnet on a line? Should these each have their own cache type too?

I can imagine that such an icon would symbolize these things as well. It doesn't have to be Biltema Cache directly, but for example

and I don't think there's much difference if you're hunting caches up in the tree, down in the well; you need to hit the eyelet with a hook or attach a magnet to it.

The special tool required attribute can be still useful, because you need your own rod in most cases, but sometimes is a wooden pole ready in place from cache owner.

But in general, I do not think that this request has a real chance. - This is not the first time I have seen a similar request here. - It is a local problem, mostly in Central Europe. For example, here in the Czech Republic there are 1332 caches with biltema in the name (and many others who do not have that word in their name). There is none with this word in the entire US. I'm afraid HQ can't understand a problem that it doesn't know personally. - I have a feeling that Geocaching is evolving according to some internal document of long-term development, not according to what the players themselves want/need.

[+MartyBartfast]

26 minutes ago, KRON family said:

There is none with this word in the entire US.

You won't find that word used in the US (or the UK) very widely, if at all,  as it's not part of the English Language; I don't even know what it means or translates to, does it just come from the name of the Biltema store or does it have a meaning in some other language?

FWFW of all the "pole" caches I've done in the UK, none of them have anything in the name to identify them as such.

 

 

[+KRON family]

36 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

You won't find that word used in the US (or the UK) very widely, if at all,  as it's not part of the English Language; I don't even know what it means or translates to, does it just come from the name of the Biltema store or does it have a meaning in some other language?

Czech geowikipedia says "The name Biltema comes from the name of a Swedish retail chain that sells telescopic poles, among other things." This word is also not in the Czech dictionary, it means nothing other than this type of cache to us (and absolutely nothing for muggles, unless they were sometimes in Sweden).

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, KRON family said:

 

The icon needs to fit the style of the existing icons, for example:

 

 Pole required.

[+The Leprechauns]

5 hours ago, KRON family said:

Czech geowikipedia says "The name Biltema comes from the name of a Swedish retail chain that sells telescopic poles, among other things."

 

Curious how 1332 caches got published in the Czech Republic with the name of a business in the cache name, contrary to the Geocache Hiding Guidelines.  Here in the USA, you can't say "Dollar General" in a cache name - you have to say "50 Cent Colonel." 

[+thebruce0]

"Fishing pole required" will definitely not be made an attribute. That's just one type of item to handle a certain task. We have quite a few caches around here that require 'fishing' in some form to attain the container, and the two most common "special tools" are natural (look around for a long stick) or a telescopic pole (many people have 12-24' poles they take with them everywhere just in case). Ladders are already commonly owned for tree, fences, caches that are attached high and require physically being at the attachment point.

But 'fishing' style caches could be anything from out on a ridiculously high limb to a nano up a lamp post in a parking lot.  I don't know anyone around here who's used a fishing pole for any of the above.

 

Personally, 'special tool required' covers that - it implies that you cannot attain the cache or sign the log without use a special type of tool (at least as the CO intended).  Whether said tool is minor enough and uncommon enough has informed hq's choices as whether it should have its own attribute (like wireless device, uv light, flashlight, etc; unlike tweezers, pen, hiking boots, etc).

 

I'd say, if you reallywant to petition hq for the attribute, you'd need to focus on the feet-on-ground-requiring-long-tool approach and that it's common enough in the general global community to warrant its own icon. "Fishing pole" or "biltema" - 99.9% unlikely, I'd guess.

 

 

3 hours ago, niraD said:

The icon needs to fit the style of the existing icons, for example:

 

 Pole required.

 

This is probably the best chance of it happening, if at all...

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

6 hours ago, niraD said:

The icon needs to fit the style of the existing icons, for example:

 

 Pole required.

 

This is probably the best chance of it happening, if at all...

 

Although I realized that the image needs to be mirrored if there is any chance of the negative version of the attribute ("No pole required") being used. That's just so the red diagonal slash doesn't hide the pole in the negative version.

[+MartyBartfast]

4 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

Curious how 1332 caches got published in the Czech Republic with the name of a business in the cache name, contrary to the Geocache Hiding Guidelines. Here in the USA, you can't say "Dollar General" in a cache name.

But Biltema isn't a business in CZ, it's from Scandiavia.

 

I don't expect I'd have trouble publishing a cache in the UK with "Dollar General" in a cache name, similalry I expect you'd get away with using Wetherspoons, but we wouldn't.

 

[+Max 1996]

On 6/19/2022 at 6:26 PM, Hügh said:

I generally agree with the Australian wiki's definition of "specialized equipment": pieces of safety equipment that require training from a certified professional to operate. They deserve attributes because you cannot simply jerry-rig a tool together from things in your trunk. You need to come prepared or prepared to give up, or else you will die.

 

Admittedly, this does not explain the existence of the:

 

 

but either way, "attributes were created for some things in the past" isn't exactly the strongest argument for creating more. What about:

• Ladder required
• Lock-picking kit required
• Screwdriver/drill required
• Magnet required
• Non-standard logbook (ie. scratching name into wood, CD, or other non-paper materials; need the right tool for that!)
• QR-code scanning device required
• Internet connection required
• Writing implement required
• Geocache-finding skills required

Where do you draw the line?

 

I think KRON family already answered this pretty well, but I will jump in with a couple of more general points.

1. What is the general reason for you and others opposing the addition of a new attribute in this thread? If it were introduced, and there are no caches it applies to in your area, then this change would have no effect on you. There are already many very specific attributes that have no real use in large parts of the world, i.e. "may require snowshoes" or "Abandoned mine nearby". I have never seen a cache these legitimately apply to, yet I am not advocating for their removal. Not every attribute has to apply to the caches in your home zone.
2. "Special tool required" is an attribute that is intentionally vague to leave it open to cover all the edge cases. "Pole required" caches are no longer an edge case, and will become even less so as time goes on. They have already spread from scandinavia - where the term "Biltema" comes from as mentioned above - to many countries in europe.
3. Many of the special tools that one could require, i.e. lockpicks, magnets, flashlights, are small enough to where you can easily carry them at all times without much effort, meaning that I can be prepared for most non-pole caches before reading the description. For pole-required caches, this is not the case (especially if you prefer to go by bike or foot), which is why the option to filter these caches out is especially required.

[+Max 1996]

On 6/20/2022 at 11:01 AM, MartyBartfast said:

You won't find that word used in the US (or the UK) very widely, if at all,  as it's not part of the English Language; I don't even know what it means or translates to, does it just come from the name of the Biltema store or does it have a meaning in some other language?

FWFW of all the "pole" caches I've done in the UK, none of them have anything in the name to identify them as such.

 

 

 

23 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

 

Curious how 1332 caches got published in the Czech Republic with the name of a business in the cache name, contrary to the Geocache Hiding Guidelines.  Here in the USA, you can't say "Dollar General" in a cache name - you have to say "50 Cent Colonel." 

 

22 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"Fishing pole required" will definitely not be made an attribute. That's just one type of item to handle a certain task. We have quite a few caches around here that require 'fishing' in some form to attain the container, and the two most common "special tools" are natural (look around for a long stick) or a telescopic pole (many people have 12-24' poles they take with them everywhere just in case). Ladders are already commonly owned for tree, fences, caches that are attached high and require physically being at the attachment point.

But 'fishing' style caches could be anything from out on a ridiculously high limb to a nano up a lamp post in a parking lot.  I don't know anyone around here who's used a fishing pole for any of the above.

 

Just FYI, the reason I specifically used "fishing rod caches" in the title is that this cache type is most commonly identified as "Angelcache" in German. "Angel" means fishing rod.

A lot of them are hung up in such a way that a ladder does not work, but a telescopic hook is required.

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Max 1996

[+niraD]

On 6/20/2022 at 4:30 AM, KRON family said:

As our biltema cache hiders say, "I bought an amazing telescopic pole for several thousand crowns (Czech currency), I want to use it more than just once. That's the only reason I hide another biltema cache."

FWIW, a similar thing happened with UV flashlights in the San Francisco Bay Area around the time I started geocaching. The local geocaching group arranged for a group purchase of UV flashlights, and predictably, there were a lot more caches published that required UV flashlights.

[+Hügh]

4 hours ago, Max 1996 said:

What is the general reason for you and others opposing the addition of a new attribute in this thread? If it were introduced, and there are no caches it applies to in your area, then this change would have no effect on you.

  

I do not think that we need more attributes. For one, they barely fit on one screen in the "improved" search; I have to Control-F to search within the search filters to search for the attributes I want to search for. And this doesn't even include all the negative versions!

 

 

4 hours ago, Max 1996 said:

"Pole required" caches are no longer an edge case, and will become even less so as time goes on.

 

If we add a "Pole required" attribute, what's next? Do we descend into Waymarking with thousands of categories for every different type of cache hide? I'm not trying to claim a slippery slope, but I think that I could argue that these (and many more) are also no longer edge cases:

• Internet connection required

  Can I find this cache using only data saved to my offline list/GPSr or will I need find an internet connection to research steps part way through?

• Non-standard logbook

  Does this cache use a logbook not made of paper? Will I not be able to sign it using a pen? "Special tool required" is insufficient because normally most people expect a paper logbook signable with a pen.

• TB hotel

  Is this cache suitable for trackables? A "Large" size is insufficient because not every Large cache is suitable/safe for placing trackables in.

• Flooding

  It would be nice to know if a cache that I am going for is in a region (bog, marsh, river) that floods frequently. I mean, we get a "rockfall" attribute, why not flooding? Both are common natural disasters.

• Multi-day Excursion

  Is this cache located in a place that will require a multi-day excursion? Will I be able to get back home/to the hotel by dusk? "Long hike (>10km)" is insufficient here because it does not accurately describe 

• Inside a Cave (or maybe re-name Abandoned mine?)

  I've found many caches inside caves, and think this would be a fantastic attribute. Like a pole-fishing cache, this would imply a more-than-normal amount of preparation (light, overalls, helmet.)

• Placed with permission

  Is this cache on private property and placed with permission? I cannot see the Reviewer notes where the CO might have provided this information. I am uncomfortable searching for a cache without knowing this. Admittedly this applies to every geocache but I am more thinking about the case where a muggle might be watching (a yard, in front of a business, etc.)

• Requires Travel / Long Distance

  I have found several Multi-caches where the final is far (>3.2km/2mi) from the posted coordinates, but that are not "Teamwork" caches. This is allowed according to the Guidelines but is sure is inconvenient. The "takes more than an hour" attribute is insufficient, because I do not mind if the cache takes more than an hour. It's gas that I'm concerned about. Nothing in the Guidelines requires the cache owner to say clearly that the final is far from the posted coordinates.

What I might agree to is to rename the existing "Tree-climbing required" attribute to a more generic "Located High up in a Tree." I suppose that this fails to distinguish between ones that are attached to a branch (climbing) or are on a hook/ring (pole fishing) but the terrain can be used to do that.

 

(In fact, if it were up to me, I'd completely overhaul the existing attributes. I mean, separate attributes for "Snowshoes" and "Cross-country Skis"? "Quads" and "Off-road Vehicles"? Why not simply "Snow Travel" and "Rough roads"?)

Edited June 21, 2022 by Hügh

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, Hügh said:

I do not think that we need attributes. For one, they barely fit on one screen in the "improved" search; I have to Control-F to search within the search options to search for the attributes I want to search for. And this doesn't even include all the negative versions!

(and they don't seem to want to even sort them in a visually meaningful way)

 

1 hour ago, Hügh said:

(In fact, if it were up to me, I'd completely overhaul the existing attributes. I mean, separate attributes for "Snowshoes" and "Cross-country Skis"? "Quads" and "Off-road Vehicles"? Why not simply "Snow Travel" and "Rough roads"?)

Yeah I'm guessing when those were introduced long ago, they weren't so much to indicate "required", as much as a desirable means of trekking to the cache. That is, enough people placed them and enough people wanted to search for them (keeping in mind the much fewer attributes at the time) that they had a reasonable excuse for existing. They probably wouldn't be added today for just the same reason you describe; very similar to another attribute.

[+KRON family]

On 6/20/2022 at 5:27 PM, The Leprechauns said:

Curious how 1332 caches got published in the Czech Republic with the name of a business in the cache name, contrary to the Geocache Hiding Guidelines.  Here in the USA, you can't say "Dollar General" in a cache name - you have to say "50 Cent Colonel." 

 

I think it is important to distinguish in what connection the word was used. We have, for example, a drugstore brand named Aunt, geocaching shop named Geocache.

The word Biltema came to us as a designation for the type of geocache, so I don't see a problem with that. By the way, Geocaching HQ also uses this word on its blog.

 

2 hours ago, Hügh said:

I do not think that we need more attributes. For one, they barely fit on one screen in the "improved" search; I have to Control-F to search within the search filters to search for the attributes I want to search for.

 

I do not think that a relatively large number of already existing attributes means that we no longer need any more attributes (but as I mentioned above, I think it would be better to have new geocache type with new icon). (Un)popularity of this cache type in Europe means that it is necessary to do something with it. 

[+Max 1996]

On 6/19/2022 at 6:26 PM, Hügh said:

but either way, "attributes were created for some things in the past" isn't exactly the strongest argument for creating more.

 

3 hours ago, Hügh said:

If we add a "Pole required" attribute, what's next? Do we descend into Waymarking with thousands of categories for every different type of cache hide? I'm not trying to claim a slippery slope, but I think that I could argue that these (and many more) are also no longer edge cases:

 

Earlier you said that the existence of specific attributes is not an argument for creating more - well I think by the same metric you can't claim that creating one is unfeasible because we could also justify creating others, unless you are actually invoking a slippery slope - one that results in more features and QoL for the users of this website. I am not advocating for any of the examples you listed, although I think they are sensible and definitely more useful than some of the existing ones.

 

Your point about the mess of the search function is justified. (Also why is the list not in alphabetical order?) I think we should differentiate between two types of attributes: those that are purely informative in the cache description (i.e. Telephone nearby) and those that one would actively want to search for, i.e. Wheelchair accessible, Night cache. The first category could easily be hidden from the search options, greatly relieving your problem.

However, these are still separate issues - a general tedious UI related to using attributes is not a good argument against the specific issue I have outlined in my post and the need for a pole required attribute. If you want to advocate for an overhaul of the search page, then I'm all for it and will happily support you.

[+Hügh]

1 hour ago, Max 1996 said:

Earlier you said that the existence of specific attributes is not an argument for creating more

 

I was responding to these

 

On 6/18/2022 at 7:26 AM, Max 1996 said:

Caches requiring a UV-light are a lot less common, yet they already have their own attribute. Many other already existing attributes are even more specific.

8 hours ago, Max 1996 said:

There are already many very specific attributes that have no real use in large parts of the world, i.e. "may require snowshoes" or "Abandoned mine nearby".

 

The way I interpreted this was

 

        Because specific attributes have been created in the past, the creation of additional specific attributes is justified.

 

I disagree; that is not a justified argument. You cannot point at them and say "they created these attributes that don't apply in my area in the past, so now it's our turn to have an attribute!" You need a better reason than that. And you do! They are a common cache type in Europe. In fact, there are a dozen or so here too. (I actually climbed to get all of them, despite the trees not having branches . But that is besides the point of this topic.)

 

1 hour ago, Max 1996 said:

unless you are actually invoking a slippery slope

 

Indeed, I am not trying to argue that

 

        If we create this attribute, then we will inevitably create another, and then we will inevitably create another, and then we will inevitably create another, and then we will inevitably create another, and... until we have so many attributes that attributes become meaningless! Therefore we do not need attributes!

 

...because, as I'm sure you know, that is fallacious. We are never going to get to the point where we have a "Geocache finding skills required" attribute, for example; that is ridiculous.

 

However, if they do create the "pole required" attribute, there are a bunch—I've listed a few already—that I would want to see added. And with lots of attributes comes confusion. I've already mentioned the search filters, but remember that that is not the only place where attributes appear.

 

I will also suggest that there might be technical reasons why GCHQ has been very conservative about adding more.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Hügh

[+ChriBli]

I'd like to point to this post summarizing the chances for an arguably better motivated audio/hearing attribute. There's even a petition going for that one. I don't think there's going to be any Biltema attribute. But what a stunning marketing feat for the retailer Biltema if there were!

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, KRON family said:

(but as I mentioned above, I think it would be better to have new geocache type with new icon).

No. Just no.

 

The method for retrieving the cache container does not make it a new type. If the elevated container is at the posted coordinates, then it's a traditional cache. If there is another stage (or other stages) before the elevated container, then it's the final of a multi-cache. If there's a puzzle to get the coordinates of the elevated container, then it's the final of a mystery/puzzle cache. And so on.

 

The method for retrieving the cache container might make an appropriate attribute, and there are several examples already (e.g., Boat required, Tree climbing required). But it does not make it a new type.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, Hügh said:

If we add a "Pole required" attribute, what's next? Do we descend into Waymarking with thousands of categories for every different type of cache hide? I'm not trying to claim a slippery slope, but I think that I could argue that these (and many more) are also no longer edge cases:

 

Some attributes I'd like to see added, in addition to Hügh's list:

• Tidal access: there are a considerable number of coastal and waterway caches around here that are best accessed at a particular tide, usually either low if access is on foot or high if access is by boat.
• Slippery rocks: I have that warning in many of my descriptions as some of the rocks around here can be deadly slippery when wet, but it'd be nice to be able to convey that in an attribute.
• Not recommended for trackables: trackables aren't allowed in caches in national parks here; also many of my caches, even the newer ones, are so rarely visited now that leaving trackables in them is effectively a long and indefinite prison sentence.

These would likely have little applicability in other parts of the world, though, so I'd be pretty surprised if they came into existence.

 

If I was running the show, one of the first questions I'd be asking before even considering a fishing rod attribute is whether the Biltema thing is just a passing fad. Will there still be lots of new caches like this in five or ten years time, or will people grow weary of having to explain why they're carrying around a long pole in the forest and lose interest? Even ALs burned brightly here in the second half of 2020 but new ones now are exceedingly rare (so far this year there have only been two created in my region after just one last year) and the initial enthusiasm for them has mostly waned. Will it be the same for Biltemas?

[+baer2006]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If I was running the show, one of the first questions I'd be asking before even considering a fishing rod attribute is whether the Biltema thing is just a passing fad. Will there still be lots of new caches like this in five or ten years time, or will people grow weary of having to explain why they're carrying around a long pole in the forest and lose interest?

It's definitely more than just a "passing fad". In my area they have become ubiquitous, many of them coming as trails of 5 to 20 caches. When newbies ask in some FB group or so, what equipment they should have other than their smartphone and a pen, the most mentioned item is usually a telescoping fishing rod, because there are so many of these caches around.

 

Nevertheless, I'm also against a new attribute. The "Special tool required" attribute is perfectly fine, and with this attribute, the CO should anyway state in the cache description what the special tool is. That some COs don't do this is a sign of sloppy cache ownership, and no amount of new attributes will help to solve that.

[+KRON family]

Last night I created a survey question in a Facebook group Czech Geocaching, because the players from the state with one of the largest numbers of Biltema caches are definitely the ones who should comment on it. The question was: Biltema caches (and similar, for example in wells)
a, should have their own attribute
b, should be unique cache type with icon

c, don't need any distinction

 

So far 370 players have participated in the poll and the results are as follows:

Only 4.6% of players think that the current situation is sufficient. For the remaining 95.4% of players, the current situation is insufficient. This number may seem frightening to the uninitiated, but Biltemas are really something that has been resonating in the Czech gaming community for a long time. This does not mean, however, that the Czechs are fans of Biltemas.

Of course, there are many supporters. Mostly those, I think, have chosen the should have their own attribute (59,6%). These players have invested some money in a rod or telescopic pole, so they would like to find caches where they can use this tool. The attribute is ideal for this.

Another group of players, on the other hand, hates Biltemas and would like to filter them out. If someone doesn't like climbing caches or earth caches, he can simply filter them out through the terrain rating or icon. It is practically impossible to filter out Biltems at this time. And without an external program it would be difficult even if the attribute would exist. I think it's mostly people like that who chose the option should be unique cache type with icon (35,8%).

 

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Will there still be lots of new caches like this in five or ten years time, or will people grow weary of having to explain why they're carrying around a long pole in the forest and lose interest?

I personally found the first biltema cache in October 2012 in Poland. It's been a long time.

At the moment I consider more important that we have more Biltema caches in the Czech Republic than Wherigo caches, Virtual caches and Challenge caches together. So I see a reason even if no one new Biltema cache will be created.

 

20 hours ago, niraD said:

The method for retrieving the cache container does not make it a new type. If the elevated container is at the posted coordinates, then it's a traditional cache. If there is another stage (or other stages) before the elevated container, then it's the final of a multi-cache. If there's a puzzle to get the coordinates of the elevated container, then it's the final of a mystery/puzzle cache. And so on.

I don't think it's just about how to get the final coordinates.

If player has to complete a task or answer any questions, then it is Virtual cache.

If player has to answer questions about geology, then it's Earth cache.

If player has to play a game on the phone, then it can be Wherigo cache.

If player has to complete a task before finding (and it's on posted coordinates), then it is Challenge cache (they don't have their own icon, but they must be Mystery).

If player can print a stamp in his diary (and it's on posted coordinates), then it is Letterbox cache.

If player has to fishing - it sounds logical to me.

 

And to the arguments that then anything could have its own attribute/icon:

Yes, the player can also dive or climb a tree at the given coordinates, but on the one hand it is usual to "get yourself to the cache" and on the other hand it is easily detectable from the map according to the terrain stars. And yes, the cache in the pipe into which the water must be poured is also "getting the cache to the player", but such a cache is one in a thousand. It's really just a matter of having some way to filter and filter out this very common type of geocache. At the moment, there is no one method.

[+Hügh]

6 hours ago, KRON family said:

should be unique cache type with icon (35,8%).

 

I strongly suspect that there are technical reasons that would guarantee this not happening. (Backwards compatibility with old GPSrs...? And also any piece of software that isn't expecting the creation of a new cache type?)

 

If this does in fact happen, people (worldwide, I'm sure!) will be furious they didn't create one for Challenge Caches.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Hügh

[+GeoTrekker26]

35 minutes ago, Hügh said:

If this does in fact happen, people (worldwide, I'm sure!) will be furious they didn't create one for Challenge Caches.

 

I suspect there will be do reason to fan the flames of your fury over this issue!

[+thebruce0]

A poll provides interesting results relative to the question asked and choices provided without knowing what kind of discussion or defense was made for each of the options. eg, if the community is up in arms and want a new attribute or new cache type, but haven't heard a reasonable explanation as to why either the current situation is sufficient or making changes isn't feasible, then of course the vote will show everyone wanting said options. With a poll result like that, I think it would prompt a respectful discussion about the mechanics and logistics of various solutions, from people who are knowledgeable.  People can be extremely emotional and energetic about ideas they love especially when they haven't heard 'both sides of the story' as it were. Of course, they may have here, but with extreme results like those reported above, I'm guessing not. That, or, no one cares and everyone really, emphatically wants one of those fixes... 

[+baer2006]

18 hours ago, KRON family said:

If player has to complete a task or answer any questions, then it is Virtual cache.

If player has to answer questions about geology, then it's Earth cache.

If player has to play a game on the phone, then it can be Wherigo cache.

If player has to complete a task before finding (and it's on posted coordinates), then it is Challenge cache (they don't have their own icon, but they must be Mystery).

If player can print a stamp in his diary (and it's on posted coordinates), then it is Letterbox cache.

If player has to fishing - it sounds logical to me.

The cache type always tell me about the task(s) , on a very high abstraction level:

- Trad: Go to the posted coordinates, there is a cache.

- Multi: Go to the posted coordinates, there you will find out how and where to continue. After 1 or more steps, you arrive at the cache.

- Mystery: Do some homework to find out where to start. From there, can be either like a trad or multi.

- Virtual: No container, read the description to find out what to do.

- etc. for the other types.

 

The nature of the cache hide plays no role in any of the cache types. Details about the hide are given by attributes - incl. "Special tool required". Therefore, creating a new cache type based on a specific kind of hide is not logical at all. I have some ideas about the motives of the 35% of people voting for it anyway, but I'm pretty sure that "logic" wasn't one of them.

[+niraD]

23 hours ago, KRON family said:

If player can print a stamp in his diary (and it's on posted coordinates), then it is Letterbox cache.

Keep in mind that the Letterbox Hybrid type would not be created as a type today.

 

It was created before attributes existed, so the only way to distinguish LBH caches from other caches was a cache type. Today, it would be created as a "Letterbox stamp" attribute.