What is the point of attributes if they're not regulated?

[+GBandBob]

We just got back from caching for today. Multiple caches on our itinerary had the "Special Tool Required" attribute on them, so we brought some of our tools along. All of them were basic, simple hides that didn't even come close to requiring any tools. Two of them also had "Tree Climbing Required" when no climbing was necessary at all (One was at shoulder height)

 

And then there's the complete flipside. Multiple times we have gone after a cache, only to arrive at the GZ and find it's way up a tree. We never would have done this (We can't climb trees), but there was no "Tree Climbing Required" attribute on the cache.

 

Not to mention Liar's caches that aren't identified as such on the page, filled with tons of fake and inaccurate attributes.

 

So, in short, what is the point of the attributes if they don't actually have to mean anything? I don't trust attributes anymore because I have no way of telling if they're truthful or accurate, missing or superfluous. Why include the feature of attributes if there's no regulation that they have to be accurate? I would think a reviewer would see a cache was up a tree, and let the CO know "Sorry, I can't publish this unless you add the Tree Climbing attribute".

 

It is my strong opinion that attributes should be required to be truthful and accurate to the hide.

[+Hügh]

25 minutes ago, GBandBob said:

It is my strong opinion that attributes should be required to be truthful and accurate to the hide.

 

I believe it is required, or at least: strongly recommended.

 

But the Reviewers aren't going to check, in the same way they don't go out to check the cache to make sure it's properly hidden or that coordinates are accurate, don't check that the puzzle is 100% "correct", and don't check that the description is typo-free, etc. Remember, the Reviewers are only really paid in hugs and smiles. They can't go checking every little detail; at some point, they simply have to trust that the CO is being honest and is providing accurate information. It is, after all, the cache owner's responsibility to ensure that their cache listing is correct.

 

My advice: (politely) take it up with the individual COs in the Message Centre.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Hügh

[Keystone]

Geocaching HQ has instructed the Reviewers to only verify four specific attributes' correct use.  "Special Tool Required" and "Tree Climbing Required" aren't on the list.

 

"Validating" that each and every attribute is being used properly on a cache page puts Reviewers on a slippery slope that ends with "I'd need to visit the cache site personally to be sure."

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, GBandBob said:

Multiple caches on our itinerary had the "Special Tool Required" attribute on them, so we brought some of our tools along. All of them were basic, simple hides that didn't even come close to requiring any tools. Two of them also had "Tree Climbing Required" when no climbing was necessary at all (One was at shoulder height)

 

And then there's the complete flipside. Multiple times we have gone after a cache, only to arrive at the GZ and find it's way up a tree. We never would have done this (We can't climb trees), but there was no "Tree Climbing Required" attribute on the cache.

Getting mixed messages. 

1 hour ago, GBandBob said:

I would think a reviewer would see a cache was up a tree, and let the CO know "Sorry, I can't publish this unless you add the Tree Climbing attribute".

Just because a geocache is up a tree doesn't mean you need to climb the tree to get it. I don't think that warrants an automatic tree climbing attribute. 

[+Smitherington]

I hardly ever check attributes. Only if I arrive onsite and am stumped (not a tree attribute).

 

But I think they should be accurate.  Some attributes are added to help someone meet a challenge. I have overheard those discussions. 

[+GBandBob]

On 6/11/2023 at 8:41 PM, Keystone said:

Geocaching HQ has instructed the Reviewers to only verify four specific attributes' correct use.  "Special Tool Required" and "Tree Climbing Required" aren't on the list.

 

"Validating" that each and every attribute is being used properly on a cache page puts Reviewers on a slippery slope that ends with "I'd need to visit the cache site personally to be sure."

 

You are right that accurately validating each one would be a bit much, but I think Special Tool and Tree Climbing are important enough to warrant a bit more scrutiny.

[+MNTA]

3 hours ago, GBandBob said:

 

You are right that accurately validating each one would be a bit much, but I think Special Tool and Tree Climbing are important enough to warrant a bit more scrutiny.

 

So when a cache does not have tree climbing required but is 10 or more feet up what should be done? NM? I like the new terminology for NA being Reviewer Attention Required, would this be appropriate?

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

 

So when a cache does not have tree climbing required but is 10 or more feet up what should be done? NM? I like the new terminology for NA being Reviewer Attention Required, would this be appropriate?

 

I would not take action on a RAR log limited to these facts. 

[hsiale]

On 6/12/2023 at 5:41 AM, Keystone said:

Geocaching HQ has instructed the Reviewers to only verify four specific attributes' correct use.  "Special Tool Required" and "Tree Climbing Required" aren't on the list.

What is on the list?

[Keystone]

4 hours ago, hsiale said:

What is on the list?

 

Wheelchair Accessible, Challenge Cache, UV Light and Wireless Beacon.

[+cerberus1]

On 6/11/2023 at 10:35 PM, GBandBob said:

It is my strong opinion that attributes should be required to be truthful and accurate to the hide.

 

Did you leave any NMs?   I'd leave a NM, saying something like "Not sure why, but container no longer as stated in attributes by the CO."    

[+thebruce0]

18 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Did you leave any NMs?   I'd leave a NM, saying something like "Not sure why, but container no longer as stated in attributes by the CO."    

 

Except, that might be more correct if the attribute was NOT a tree climb. If there's no attribute, it neither confirms nor denies that there is tree climbing required. So it's not false...

[+cerberus1]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Except, that might be more correct if the attribute was NOT a tree climb. If there's no attribute, it neither confirms nor denies that there is tree climbing required. So it's not false...

 

Where on Earth did you get that from a response to "It is my strong opinion that attributes should be required to be truthful and accurate to the hide."  ?

[+thebruce0]

Because I was responding to (as quoted) "Not sure why, but container no longer as stated in attributes by the CO."

 

Thus: if the attribute was "Not a tree climb" (and it is) it would apply. But if there is NO attribute, then nothing is stated in attributes about tree climb or not. I was responding to what I quoted.

Edited June 28, 2023 by thebruce0

[hsiale]

2 hours ago, Keystone said:

Wheelchair Accessible

There are very many caches marked as Wheelchair Accessible which are completely impossible to get for a person on a wheelchair who doesn't have anyone with them to help. From my experience this is the most often abused attribute.

[Keystone]

9 minutes ago, hsiale said:

There are very many caches marked as Wheelchair Accessible which are completely impossible to get for a person on a wheelchair who doesn't have anyone with them to help. From my experience this is the most often abused attribute.

 

Since your account has not logged any finds, I'm not sure where this experience is coming from.  If you are not posting to the Forums with your primary account, you should be.

 

The Wheelchair Accessible is "regulated" in the sense that it's enforced for inclusion on caches rated one star for terrain, and Reviewers question its usage on caches rated higher for terrain.  From our homes and offices, Reviewers are not able to verify whether the terrain rating is accurate.  That would require, at a minimum, a dialogue between the Reviewer and the Cache Owner about the ratings, and possibly an onsite visit if all "abuse" is to be prevented.  This would introduce additional delays in the publication process and, for onsite verification, the need for reimbursement of the Reviewer's travel expenses.

[hsiale]

This is my only account. I am not interested in geocaching achievements and statistics, and I never cache alone (and people I cache with are super interested in achievements and statistics so they log everything quickly and properly), so I don't bother logging any caches. But during last year and a half I have visited approx. 1500-2000 caches in 18 European countries).

 

My account exists because I am interested in creating caches so I need one. So I am also using that account to discuss geocaching.

Edited June 28, 2023 by hsiale