Suggesting New Attributes

April 12, 2005

Is this thread even still monitored for possible attribute updates?

Anyone?

April 12, 2005

The discussion about new Attributes seems to have silently moved to another thread, along with the attention of the people that make the decisions.

At least that's my impression. I may be totally wrong

April 16, 2005

If you have a new attribute request, post it here.

I'd like to propose two attributes: "light source required" and "dirty".

The first one would simply mean that you will need a light source to be able to retrieve the cache. Most of the time this would mean the cache is in a cave or other similar enclosed space without natural light.

The second one would signify that you will get dirty while retrieving the cache, for example you'd have to crawl on your belly in a low space through dust and gravel. Idea is that you could skip these caches if you're out on a business trip with just this one set of clothes <_<

A third idea that I came up while writing this: acrophobia and claustrophobia (fears of heights and enclosed spaces) are surprisingly common. Should there be warnings for these already in the attributes, so that afflicted people could skip these?

Is there any point in writing this, does anyone who counts still read this? :laughing:

April 22, 2005

Here's one that I feel is pretty useful: *Indoor*

...which would qualify if *any* part of the cache took place indoors (useful for multi-caches).

The reason why this is especially useful, is because it allows people to search for caches that they can complete (or at least partially complete) during bad weather days.

Now wouldn't that make things nice?

April 25, 2005

I think it's pretty safe to say that this thread is being ignored by the powers at be.

April 25, 2005

I think it's pretty safe to say that this thread is being ignored by the powers at be.

Is there a different thread that is being used for this purpose?

April 25, 2005

I wish, but I think the folks who originally put this addition to the site here have neglected to check it often (if at all).

20.7k · April 25, 2005

Just because TPTB don't reply 'That's the best idea ever! Let's do it now.' or 'Pee yew, why'd you stink up the website with that lousy idea?', doesn't meen that no one reads this thread.

June 23, 2005

If you have a new attribute request, post it here.

How about:

"Dry weather only" For caches that are inaccessible during or after heavy rain (like one that requires a long steep climb up a dirt trail).

June 27, 2005

Parking Coordinates or Directions To Trailheads

On some of the caches, the parking coordinates or directions to trailheads would be a great addition. Currently visiting in CO and there are some great caches in the mountains west of CO Springs but we don't know where to start--or even which Canyon! Suggesting this for us "lower level," who stay with 3.0 or 2.5 or below, not the real experts.

Some of the cachers already do this and it's great. What do you folks think?

Buffpup

July 3, 2005

I was just emailing about a cache listing where it's important for cachers to read the page, it occurred to me an "i" icon (important info in description) might be useful.

Sure, mystery and offset caches usually start with "IMPORTANT: THE ABOVE COORDS ARE NOT THE CACHE" so downloaders might be made aware--but in other cases (if not abused) it could draw attention of those who typically don't read descriptions.

In this case it's a standard multicache.

(In future searching, it would also mean if folks just want to download they could avoid caches with the "i"...presuming the search will let you filter a 'not' condition...)

Always thinking,

Randy

I think that this is required!! I think it should be viewable from the cach search page so when planning a trip you don't need to read every description to see if it requires special attention.

July 5, 2005

Having the attributes is great, but to make them really useful you need to be able to search on them, using either pocket queries preferable, so you can include or exclude caches that have a query on them. Otherwise they are not much more useful that the owner just adding text to the description saying the same thing.

8.9k · July 5, 2005

Did you read the thread at the top of the Geocaching.com forum? It's a sticky thread about attributes.

Jeremy Posted: Jan 17 2005, 04:27 PM
Will attributes be searchable?

Attributes will not be searchable for a while to allow people to update their cache listings with the appropriate information. We will be providing an email update to cache owners so they can add this information to their listings. The search capabilities will be in development for a while anyway.

Will attributes be available in Pocket Queries?

Pocket Queries will not contain the attribute information until we update the specification for the GPX to allow this info. We did create an attribute feature in 1.1 but we'll most likely change it to another version to accomodate some new ideas.

Parking Coordinates are a whole different matter - and are being addressed in the possibility of uploading multiple coordinates (or even a GPX file) to the cache page.

I did suggest adding parking coordinates as long ago as Dec 6 2002.

July 31, 2005

So many attributes available for use.

But do we really need to know if campfires, picnic tables or telephones are there?

The one thing I'd really like to know if whether there is a heavy tree cover that impairs GPS readings.

On the other hand, if someone is dense enough to put a cache in a place you can't get a reading, they probably wouldn't know the need for that attribute. :laughing: :rolleyes:

September 7, 2005

What I'd like to see is an icon indicating the distance to be travelled:

(for example)

< 1 km

1 km - 3 km

3 - 5 km

5 - 15 km

> 15 km

...and make it searchable of course.

September 7, 2005

The one thing I'd really like to know if whether there is a heavy tree cover that impairs GPS readings.

With an automatic update to reflect seasonal changes in the vegetation? :lol:

1.7k · September 8, 2005

I just scrolled through all 3 pages of this topic, and did not see a recommendation for a "Business Attire Friendly" attribute. Now that is one I think would be really useful. It would be nice to know if a cache can be hunted during lunchtime without messing up the clothes you have to wear the rest of the day at the office. This cache says only to do it in long pants. I thought just maybe I could do it at lunch, but then I read the logs about loads of burs sticking to clothing. This one will have to wait for the weekend!

September 8, 2005

What I'd like to see is an icon indicating the distance to be travelled:

(for example)

< 1 km

1 km - 3 km

3 - 5 km

5 - 15 km

> 15 km

...and make it searchable of course.

distance from where? you don't live in the same place I do.... or do you?

September 8, 2005

I just scrolled through all 3 pages of this topic, and did not see a recommendation for a "Business Attire Friendly" attribute. Now that is one I think would be really useful.

I like that idea. I travel on business and sometimes the only chance I get to cache is at lunchtime. There have been times that I've spent the afternoon looking a bit nasty.

September 8, 2005

What I'd like to see is an icon indicating the distance to be travelled:

(for example)

< 1 km

1 km - 3 km

3 - 5 km

5 - 15 km

> 15 km

...and make it searchable of course.

distance from where? you don't live in the same place I do.... or do you?

Well, yes, actually. Sometimes I creep up to you when you're asleep...

...on a more serious note:

I was referring to the distance you'd have to walk (or ride a bike, or drive), counting from the starting point / trailhead to the cache and back.

September 26, 2005

I've seen a lot of "Fishin' Caches listed. It would be great if there were an attribute icon for that. It would be nice to know that there's public fishing available near some of the caches.

2.1k · September 26, 2005

I think a "will take significant amount of time" (or "more than X hours") button near the "takes less than an hour" button would be useful.

nfa-jamie

3.2k · May 13, 2006

There is somewhat of a consensus developing in this thread that perhaps there should be a new attribute made available to flag caches that have special logging requirements.

To paraphrase the OP: "... that is, they are like traditional caches (a container with a log book at the posted coordinates), but the owner won't allow you to log a find until you do something extra (e.g., upload a photo, send owner email, write a poem, tell a story)."

Several folks in the thread have made the very valid point that there is currently no way to specifically search for or filter out these hides. Sure, the extra requirements are normally spelled out clearly in the cache description, but having a software-based way to distinguish such hides from other 'truly traditonal' caches would make sense for reasons of convenience, especially for those who cache paperless. Many cachers like to be able to simply sign the logbook, replace the container, then log their smiley online without worring about having to 'jump through extra hoops' -- i.e., meet some post-find requirement.

The linked thread contains many other suggestions as well, such as changing the official definitions of the existing major cache types (Traditional, Mystery) to include or exclude caches with logging requirements. Others have even suggested creating an entirely new cache type.

I personally own a poetry-themed cache for which displaying such an attribute would clearly benefit those who might prefer NOT to find and log it.

Comments?

May 13, 2006

Caching is for everyone. Children, elderly, handicapped. Micros have their place, children need to be kept safe. There are also cachers who like 5 mile hikes in the woods and don't need icons, smilies and pictures! This new geocaching generation doesn't seem to understand that. You have the right to do any cache you want. You also have the responsibility to prepare yourself before heading out, other than just blindly downloading coord's to your GPSr. Part of geocaching is READING THE CACHE PAGE... ALL of it! You don't HAVE to do the cache if your not comfortable with the written description. If you're not sure where you will be going, LOOK AT A MAP! There are 9 links listed on the cache page to map sites - there's also TOPO! MapSource and others. Will it be difficult? LOOK. Little stars for difficulty and terrain. Some cachers just need a page with the coord's, a good description and the logs. Part of the fun is figuring out just what the cache is all about. Part of the fun is finding and seeing new things and places. For some, bears, wolves, snakes, bugs, briers, mud and other nasty things ARE part of the fun - whether we were told about them in advance or not. Airports? Strollers? Playgrounds? Mosquitoes? Other bugs??? How about an icon that just says WUSS. It's soon time to divide Geocaching.com in to 2 different sections. One section for the macadam parking lot caches, with pictures, and the second section for the mountain caches, with just the bare facts (pun intended). There are enough icons. If you can't figure out what you're getting into by reading, stay at home.

Edited May 13, 2006 by Vertumnis

15.3k · May 13, 2006

The linked thread contains many other suggestions as well, such as changing the official definitions of the existing major cache types (Traditional, Mystery) to include or exclude caches with logging requirements. Others have even suggested creating an entirely new cache type.

When it comes to updating the cache-type guidelines, I think there are basically two camps. One argues that post-find logging requirements should be banned (like virtuals, webcams, etc.). The other argues that the guidelines for puzzle/mystery/unknown caches should be updated so it can truly be a "catch-all" cache type, even for caches where the container is at the posted coordinates. There are caches with logging requirements that make them feel more like a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache than a traditional cache, but according to the letter of the current guidelines, any cache with a container at the posted coordinates is a traditional cache, not a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache.

3.2k · May 13, 2006

When it comes to updating the cache-type guidelines, I think there are basically two camps. One argues that post-find logging requirements should be banned (like virtuals, webcams, etc.)...

Let me say that I strongly disagree with that proposal. I welcome and consider all opposing viewpoints, but anyone who supports that proposal might want to read up on both sides of the debate (six pages worth so far) before weighing in with an opinion.

... There are caches with logging requirements that make them feel more like a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache than a traditional cache, but according to the letter of the current guidelines, any cache with a container at the posted coordinates is a traditional cache, not a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache.

Keep in mind that the very first line in those guidelines states: "These are listing guidelines only."

7.2k · May 14, 2006

The linked thread contains many other suggestions as well, such as changing the official definitions of the existing major cache types (Traditional, Mystery) to include or exclude caches with logging requirements. Others have even suggested creating an entirely new cache type.
When it comes to updating the cache-type guidelines, I think there are basically two camps. One argues that post-find logging requirements should be banned (like virtuals, webcams, etc.). The other argues that the guidelines for puzzle/mystery/unknown caches should be updated so it can truly be a "catch-all" cache type, even for caches where the container is at the posted coordinates. There are caches with logging requirements that make them feel more like a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache than a traditional cache, but according to the letter of the current guidelines, any cache with a container at the posted coordinates is a traditional cache, not a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache.

The "Unknown" cache-type can also be used if you don't want to tell what flavor of hunt it is. It already can handle the "catch all." It's unfortunate that the description didn't reflect this when it was changed.

From the Wayback Machine. It used to be clear that you could mark a cache as Unknown if you didn't want to give away the hunt--this could include traditionals.

3.2k · May 14, 2006

The "Unknown" cache-type can also be used if you don't want to tell what flavor of hunt it is. It already can handle the "catch all." It's unfortunate that the description didn't reflect this when it was changed.

From the Wayback Machine. It used to be clear that you could mark a cache as Unknown if you didn't want to give away the hunt--this could include traditionals.

Good point. Maybe that was an oversight, or maybe they changed it that way for a reason. Does anybody here know if there was a reason?

May 19, 2006

I really wish we could get a 'Cache in Trash Out Needed' Attribute.

15.3k · May 19, 2006

I really wish we could get a 'Cache in Trash Out Needed' Attribute.

Would it really be used? I've found only one cache where there was more litter than I could reasonably pick up in one caching trip. The rest either didn't need CITO help in the first place, or didn't need any more CITO help after I left.

7.2k · May 20, 2006

I really wish we could get a 'Cache in Trash Out Needed' Attribute.
Would it really be used?

I think it would. I've come across plenty of caches with requests for CITO in the description.

November 7, 2008

Some icons I'd like to suggest to add to the mix:

Bushwhacking

For those caches that just don't have a proper trail leading to them. This could also have a "No Bushwacking" icon applied, indicating that one should stay on the path.

Weak or no signal

For caches such as Bloody Fingers, Dirty Diapers, which is in a tunnel under a mountain, and the best GPSr on the planet won't help you find the cache. Someone had mentioned the idea of a "Cave" icon, to which this might also apply.

Mud

For the caches where boots with good traction and clothes you don't mind getting dirty are not an option.

and

Private Property

For the caches located on someone's property with their permission. It'll inform cachers that someone was gracious enough to invite us onto their property and to be extra respectful and brief with their visits. Plus, it informs people that it IS in fact OK to go onto the property.

Now, I created these graphics on my own, in very little time. If anyone has better graphics they'd like to submit, by all means share.

The first of the "Weak Signal" icons, by the way is an animated gif, unfortunately converted to a JPEG and not presently animated. For anyone who doesn't get it, it's supposed to be static. It makes more sense animated.

20.7k · November 7, 2008

Wouldn't the mud icon depend on the weather?

Also, I don't think that the 'private property' one is a good idea. As described, it would give the message to some outsiders that caches without this icon are placed on private property without adequate permission, leading to a classic 'South Carolina' scenario.

9.2k · November 8, 2008

Also, I don't think that the 'private property' one is a good idea. As described, it would give the message to some outsiders that caches without this icon are placed on private property without adequate permission, leading to a classic 'South Carolina' scenario.

Agreed. Private Property needs a lot more explanation than just an icon, but an icon will lead people to think that's all that's required.

November 8, 2008

I would love the attributes to show up in the GPX files somehow. What I mean by that is yes you can load into GSAK and you have them but if you load them into a palm or like me a Colorado, I don't see them. I would like to but they don't show up anywhere. Sometimes it would be useful to have them. Granted I can usually get around without them ok but it would be nice to have.

November 8, 2008

So far as we can tell, the concept of the attributes is just to add an alert that cachers should pay attention to the description a bit more. Of course, there are a few irresponsible cachers out there (or as we like to call them, stupid people) who will either only pay attention to the icons, won't pay any attention to the icons or just load the cache to their units with no descriptions whatsoever.

Attributes are meant to be optional, but they're there to make the caches easier for cachers to be prepared to go after.

On top of it, they also help the publishers when they're reviewing the cache.

The reason we suggested the additional attributes is more or less based on situations we've encountered when the attribute might have helped. That and the fact that there's a "Watch for Livestock" attribute. Seriously, doesn't that make any attribute suggested worthwhile for review?

1.2k · November 11, 2008

Sorry if this was already discussed, I just jumped to the end :unsure: In addition to "available in winter" what about "may be hazardous in winter" to indicate something like a country road on a north facing slope that may or may not be passable during or after inclement weather. I almost spent a winter at the base of a steep, paved road that was completely ice covered weeks after the last snowstorm. I didn't realize it was still iced over until I was sliding down it.

Information is everything!

January 15, 2009

Sorry if this was already discussed, I just jumped to the end In addition to "available in winter" what about "may be hazardous in winter" to indicate something like a country road on a north facing slope that may or may not be passable during or after inclement weather. I almost spent a winter at the base of a steep, paved road that was completely ice covered weeks after the last snowstorm. I didn't realize it was still iced over until I was sliding down it.

Information is everything!

Hey there what about an attribute that specifically state "NIGHT CACHE" one that is set up to do at night with reflectors, etc. for fun at night while being legal, as at least around here in WA state, parks are off limits after dusk etc.

Sure some of these "Night Caches" will be able to be done during the day....but some could and are set up to do at night for optimal FUN!!

I proposed the idea to Groundspeak about a Night Cache type icon, like an owl or a wolf howling at a moon, but was told that the flashlight required and available at night icons were for the night cache reasons but most cachers that I talk to tell me that flashlight required just tells them that it's a dark area where the cache is....not the whole cache trip and that available at night just tells them that it's ALSO available, legally at night, and the 24/7 icon states pretty much the same thing both day and night.

I haven't found any night caches set up with reflectors or specifically for doing at night, where the cache owners have used the attributes.....we, as cachers, need to get the word out there to start using and putting the Attributes on there cache pages, as I don't think we will get a specific Cache type icon, even though Groundspeak did make one for the new "Wherigo" that is really specific to only cachers that have a new Garmin Colorado, or lug a laptop around to do it......what about those of us that like and use Magellans or are happy with our older, but still working GPSr and can't afford a new GPS just for certain cache types???? At least a new NIGHT CACHE ICON would be available to ALL users without singleing any cachers out.....

So let's get the word out to get us a specific ICON and ATTRIBUTE for night caches!!!

January 15, 2009

I agree that Night Caches should have their own icon OR a SPECIFIC attribute.

BTW, It's my understanding that Magellan was offered the chance to include the Wherigo player on their brand of GPS, but refused.

January 15, 2009

We already have "Recommended at night" as an attribute.

Do you think it needs to be re-worded?

8.9k · January 16, 2009

We already have "Recommended at night" as an attribute.

Do you think it needs to be re-worded?

This is different than a night only icon! People don't use the attributes properly in many cases or don't realize there's even a night cache option. Some will label their caches "recommended at night" because they can find the trad cache at any time. Some will also use the flashlight attribute for other things than a night cache (caves being just one).

I would love to have a night cache icon so it is easier to find them, more people know about them and there's less confusion!

1.7k · January 18, 2009

We already have "Recommended at night" as an attribute.

Do you think it needs to be re-worded?

I could go for a re-wording.

"Flashlight required" doesn't mean night, It means you need portable light to see. It could also mean you need light to open the container.

"Available 24/7" does not mean at night just available all day and night.

"Not Available 24/7" does not mean at night it means only available during certain hours.

"Recommended at Night" does not mean only at night, it means that the cache is worthy of doing at night.

Now and should be obvious as to the intentions of the CO for the averagely intelligent person, but you don't have to have average or better intelligence to play. They (you know who they are) may understand each symbol individually but then 1+1=fish to them.

Then you do have intelligent people that just want a quick simple method to acquire caches specifically designed to be done at night. Lets face the simple fact that caching at night is a different beast.

Here is where I do a classic 180°

If you re-word "Recommended at Night" then you are going to set off a lot of CO's that are only stating that there is merit in doing their cache at night but hasn't designed or doesn't want to restrict people to doing it at night.

So re-wording is a bad idea once you take that into account and a new "Not available during day" attribute would be the quickest solution.

March 11, 2009

What about cache hidden in an evergreen (pine, fir what ever) attribute.

I would like to be warned before I head out for one of them...

Also, what about a winter only cache.

I have installed a few caches that are only available in winter because of the snow...

Thanks for considering...

Suggesting New Attributes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment