Attribute Definition

[+autigerman]

Can someone please point me to a page with official definitions of the attributes? I recently had an event denied until I removed a certain attribute. I have hosted events for years and have dozens of events with this particular attribute. I'd like to see HQ's definitions to make sure I fully understand what each one is supposed to represent. Thanks in advance for your assistance! 

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, autigerman said:

Can someone please point me to a page with official definitions of the attributes? I recently had an event denied until I removed a certain attribute. I have hosted events for years and have dozens of events with this particular attribute. I'd like to see HQ's definitions to make sure I fully understand what each one is supposed to represent. Thanks in advance for your assistance! 

The closest I've seen to a list of definitions is the list of attributes:

https://www.geocaching.com/about/icons.aspx

 

There are a few with additional policies (e.g., "Wheelchair accessible" must be T1, and T1.5 or greater can't be "Wheelchair accessible"), but I haven't seen a list of those policies.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

14 hours ago, autigerman said:

Can someone please point me to a page with official definitions of the attributes? I recently had an event denied until I removed a certain attribute. I have hosted events for years and have dozens of events with this particular attribute. I'd like to see HQ's definitions to make sure I fully understand what each one is supposed to represent. Thanks in advance for your assistance! 

 

Why don't you just ask the Reviewer who denied it? You'll get a better answer than by crowdsourcing.

[+HHL]

15 hours ago, autigerman said:

events with this particular attribute

Which attribute are you talking about?

[+paleolith]

I take the OP to be wanting to avoid future misunderstandings regarding any attribute.

[+The A-Team]

Most of the attributes are pretty self-explanatory, and I would expect very few of them to be challenged by a reviewer. It seems like there's just one specific attribute that may be an issue, and it would be helpful for others to know so they could avoid potential issues with their own events in the future.

[+Viajero Perdido]

@autigerman

 

Could you please just identify the attribute?

[+MNTA]

Team work cache attribute?

 

[+x7Kevin]

If it is the teamwork cache attribute it makes sense, I think a lot of people misuse this one. It’s intended to differentiate a very specific type of cache. It doesn’t just mean working together with another cacher, but hiding a cache with the help of someone from a different area. 
 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=814

[+arisoft]

On 4/29/2025 at 7:49 AM, autigerman said:

I recently had an event denied until I removed a certain attribute.

 

You have used attributes creatively. For example https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7DZ4W has "No tree climbing required". Is there a tree inside this building?

Here https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6ZDJ4 you have "Special tool required". What kind of tool you need to enter this building, a crowbar?

 

Is it possible that some attributes of your events are somehow misleading or false and this is why you are under observation?

 

 

 

[+baer2006]

8 minutes ago, x7Kevin said:

If it is the teamwork cache attribute it makes sense, I think a lot of people misuse this one. It’s intended to differentiate a very specific type of cache. It doesn’t just mean working together with another cacher, but hiding a cache with the help of someone from a different area. 
 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=814

You draw a wrong conclusion here.

 

The page you link says "If a cache is designed to be solved by two cachers in two different areas, then it must have the Teamwork attribute." This is not a two-way equivalence, i.e. the following proposition is not necessarily true: "If a cache has the Teamwork attribute, then is has to be designed to be solved by two cachers in two different areas." "A => B" doesn't imply "B => A".

 

Boolean logic nerdiness aside, I have seen the Teamwork attribute used for gadget caches, where it is physically impossible for a single cacher to retrieve the logbook. And I think the attribute is perfectly appropriate for such caches.

[+Viajero Perdido]

If the OP or a reviewer could just tell us the troublesome attribute, we wouldn't have to guess.

 

I've used teamwork many times on events.  We are a community, a family, a team.

 

I've used livestock because it's on the menu.  I've used scuba because somebody needed that attribute.  (I do requests.)  Harmless stuff.  I haven't messed with wheelchair because AFAIK it's the only one with a rule.  Or is it?

 

Edited May 4 by Viajero Perdido

[+x7Kevin]

52 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

You draw a wrong conclusion here.

 

The page you link says "If a cache is designed to be solved by two cachers in two different areas, then it must have the Teamwork attribute." This is not a two-way equivalence, i.e. the following proposition is not necessarily true: "If a cache has the Teamwork attribute, then is has to be designed to be solved by two cachers in two different areas." "A => B" doesn't imply "B => A".

 

Boolean logic nerdiness aside, I have seen the Teamwork attribute used for gadget caches, where it is physically impossible for a single cacher to retrieve the logbook. And I think the attribute is perfectly appropriate for such caches.

I just linked that page to show what a Teamwork Cache is, I’m drawing that conclusion from personal experience and what I’ve always believed that attribute is supposed to represent. 
 

Anyone can think anything about any attribute, just because you’ve seen it used a certain way doesn’t make it more or less right. 

[+Hügh]

1 hour ago, Viajero Perdido said:

it's the only one with a rule.  Or is it?

 

Wheelchair, Challenge cache, Solution checker enabled, Wireless beacon...?

 

I seem to remember a Keystone post saying there were four attributes with rules.

Edited May 4 by Hügh

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, Viajero Perdido said:

I've used livestock because it's on the menu.  I've used scuba because somebody needed that attribute.  (I do requests.)  Harmless stuff.  I haven't messed with wheelchair because AFAIK it's the only one with a rule.  Or is it?

 

 

While I apreciate helping folk out but this is why attribute challenges are bad for the game. Attributes should be accurate and helpful in finding the cache. It frustrates me when tree climbing attributes are missing or long hikes. 

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

While I apreciate helping folk out but this is why attribute challenges are bad for the game.

 

Anything can be bad for the game if it's misused. I once created a puzzle cache called Xanthorrhoea Flowers (GCA3Q55) because a friend posted that she needed a cache starting with X for a pre-moratorium alphabet challenge. I tried to do the right thing, though, basing the puzzle on the Xanthorrhoea plant (Australian grass tree) and placing the cache itself amongst a clump of them, but I also perhaps frivolously added the No Tree Climbing attribute since this is probably the only Australian tree that can't be climbed (the trunk has little strength). In a similar frivolous vein, I added the Livestock nearby attribute to my puzzle cache A Cow Named Anne (GC9JDPF) as the actual cache is a cow.

 

 

My own two challenge-caches are attribute-based. One, Slow Cooked Aussie Challenge (GC752YF), simply requires 20 finds with the Takes more than 1 hour attribute, while the other, The Nemophilist Challenge (GC8DQXK), requires various numbers of the Significant Hike, Cliffs/Falling Rocks, Dangerous Animals and Scenic View attributes as they all come into play in getting to GZ. While a few COs added the Takes more than 1 hour attribute to some caches that genuinely take more than an hour to complete, I'm not aware of anyone misusing those attributes on caches just to make qualification for my challenges easier. My goal in creating those challenges was to try to encourage people to do what are often pretty awesome but time-consuming (and thus rarely visited) caches, and I hit the mark with at least one finder who wrote in their log "The qualifying caches for this challenge are generally the best ones around, and make for great days with family and friends too." 

 

I don't understand why this is bad for the game, unless the game is now just about racking up as many quick smileys as you can and anything that takes more than an hour is intrinsically bad.

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

While I apreciate helping folk out but this is why attribute challenges are bad for the game. Attributes should be accurate and helpful in finding the cache. It frustrates me when tree climbing attributes are missing or long hikes. 

 

Newer attribute challenges usually have exclusion for events because attributes are misused so often with events.

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't understand why this is bad for the game, unless the game is now just about racking up as many quick smileys as you can and anything that takes more than an hour is intrinsically bad.

 

When a challenge is rational and is intented to bring the player to interesting places, requires only few caches to find and anyone can meet requirements. What happens? A buch of events that have the special attribute at places that are not related to the attribute. The reason to put the attribute to events is to spoil the challenge and spoil the experience. It has no benefit to the hobby.

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

When a challenge is rational and is intented to bring the player to interesting places, requires only few caches to find and anyone can meet requirements. What happens? A buch of events that have the special attribute at places that are not related to the attribute. The reason to put the attribute to events is to spoil the challenge and spoil the experience. It has no benefit to the hobby.

 

As far as I can see, only one of the 78 events I've attended over the last 12 years had the Takes more than 1 hour attribute and that was a time-consuming hike down a series of waterfalls to the cache location at the bottom. Two had the Significant Hike attribute but both were long hikes to the event location, four had the Cliffs/Falling Rocks attribute and were indeed held close to cliffs, and the five with the Dangerous Animals attribute were in bushland settings where snakes might be encountered. 32 had the Scenic View attribute and I haven't gone through each one to see if they were all legitimate, but many of the events I've attended have been outdoors at places that do have scenic views. If people who attended those events want to use them as qualifiers for my challenge caches, I don't see why they shouldn't. A significant hike is still a significant hike whether you're doing it to get to a cache or an event, and the snakes don't care whether the people they bite are looking for a cache or socialising at an event.

 

Caches with fanciful D/T ratings to help people fulfil Fizzy-style challenges seem to be a lot more common.

[+thebruce0]

If the attribute on the event is not misleading, then it should be used (yes, even "No tree climbing required" on an event in a restaurant :P)

But "Scuba gear required" for such an event should not be.

 

ETA: *should should be could

Edited May 7 by thebruce0

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 5/5/2025 at 9:21 AM, thebruce0 said:

If the attribute on the event is not misleading, then it should be used (yes, even "No tree climbing required" on an event in a restaurant :P)

 

But "Scuba gear required" for such an event should not be.

 

Agreed. There is an important difference between frivolous and inaccurate.