Mosquito Attribute

[twjolson & Kay]

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. GC.com has all kinds of attribute for it's caches, even a section devoted to things like ticks and thorns. Why not mosquitos?

[+Renegade Knight]

Mosquito's tend to be in large regions where a cache location can be sans thorns or ticks. That's my guess. I tend to know when there is a chance of Mosquitos...

[twjolson & Kay]

True, and I do agree. But in the same area, one cache can be flooded with mosquitos, while a cache less then half a mile is much lighter. This happened to me last night.

[+StarBrand]

In most areas of the country mosquitos are seasonal pests so the attribute would have to be: "Seasonal Mosquitos"

[+Markwell]

I don't think I've been to a cache in the summertime that HASN'T had mosquitos. Well, except for ones like this.

[+bluet]

Just wear DEET!!!!

[markandlynn]

Where do you stop. Some of my caches have a nettle problem can i have a nettle attribute. Perhaps a more generic biting and stinging insect present atttribute would be better than ticks ? and spiky and stinging plants attribute would better fit requirements. (i believe we dont have poison ivy in the UK for example)

[+Runaround]

Where do you stop.

I've wondered about the same thing. How about "Your shoes might get dirty" attribute? Or "You'll get sweaty in the summer" attribute? Alternately, "It will be cold in the winter".

 

I'm in favor of a "The cache is in the outdoors, expect the outdoors" attribute.

[+Lux]

twjolson & Kay, My standing recommendation is to not suggest improvements/enhancements to the site as your suggestion will be followed by a chorus of self-flagellators. I now realize that it can't be done natively, so embrace it!

 

Trust me it feels soooo much better when you don't hit the brick wall of experts who write the book: You can do anything with less than 20 Pocket Queries My enlightened state has revealed the following:

 

1) Exploit the system. To hell with what it does to the site and bandwidth.

2) Find ways around the system.

3) Enjoy watching hell freeze over.

 

Your problem falls into #2 & #3. So I suggest you take a look at using The Selector to add the attributes that should be standard with the site but will not be.

 

Oh and around Pennsylvania, we have a huge problem with West Nile Virus killing older people with weak immune systems. I have one cache that is near an environmental area (required pond next to a Mall). It has stagnant water and therefore Mosquitoes. I do let people know that they should protect themselves. But that is just silly I know.

 

Carry on.

Edited June 21, 2005 by luxuryoils

[+ChileHead]

Too many attributes makes the whole concept of attributes meaningless. There are already too many now.

[+tozainamboku]

Too many attributes makes the whole concept of attributes meaningless. There are already too many now.

I disagree. I think more attributes would allow the user to select those that are most appropriate for their cache. I would agree that if you had 100 attributes to choose from and you selected nearly all of them, attributes would be meaningless. But there is already a limit of 10 attributes on a cache page and most people use less than that. Why not have mosquitos? Although I do like The Selector's choice of Wear Insect Repellant.

 

I see athe attributes as a quick way for summarizing and highlighting important information about the cache in the same area on every cache pages.

 

What I haven't exactly figured out is how doing searches on attributes would be helpful. For one thing I can't imagine searching for caches that have mosquitos. I could see looking for caches that are kid friendly, or involve significant hike, or can be done on my lunch hour. But since many caches don't use these attributes I don't know how useful this would be.

[+southdeltan]

I personally think the "tick" attribute should be changed to an arthropod attribute, or something representing ticks, flies, mosquitos, chiggers and similar organisms.

 

In my area, there's a month or 2 when we DON'T have mosquitos, and some years they are about year round.

 

We don't really have much of a tick population, but we have a very healthy mosquito population.

 

sd

[twjolson & Kay]

I suggest you take a look at using The Selector to add the attributes that should be standard with the site but will not be.

While I don't agree with some of what you said, I am grateful for The Selector link! I've seen that on caches and will use that on mine toot sweet. Thank you.

[+Lux]

I suggest you take a look at using The Selector to add the attributes that should be standard with the site but will not be.

While I don't agree with some of what you said, I am grateful for The Selector link! I've seen that on caches and will use that on mine toot sweet. Thank you.

Don't listen to me. Most of it was tongue in cheek with a side of bitterness at some of my own experiences making suggestions around here.

[twjolson & Kay]

I suggest you take a look at using The Selector to add the attributes that should be standard with the site but will not be.

While I don't agree with some of what you said, I am grateful for The Selector link! I've seen that on caches and will use that on mine toot sweet. Thank you.

Don't listen to me. Most of it was tongue in cheek with a side of bitterness at some of my own experiences making suggestions around here.

I think I can relate. It's quite the uphill battle suggesting new ideas to people and things that are bigger then I am. Either it's not a good idea (in thier eyes) or it's not worth the time or they are far to overworked. It's understandable, but frustrating.

[+GPScooterphish]

Your problem falls into #2 & #3. So I suggest you take a look at using The Selector to add the attributes that should be standard with the site but will not be.

Hey, that's pretty darn slick. Must have a generous bandwidth allottment to support hosting those images

[Jeremy]

A bug spray attribute is probably more fitting and inclusive. What do you think?

[+Rebel]

A bug spray attribute is probably more fitting and inclusive. What do you think?

That would be good if only as a reminder. Heck, I've gotten bitten by chiggers in my front yard.

 

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the attributes don't appear in the data I receive in my PQs. Unless I actually view the page online, I generally don't have that info on hand during a cache trip. This has probably been discussed before but I'd like to see them in my PQ data.

[+Markwell]

From what I understand, the attributes will eventually be included in the PQ GPX file, but also searchable from the PQ page itself. Only want caches that will take less than an hour? Need to avoid caches that overtly warn of Poison Ivy because you have severe reactions? Want to take your dog on caches that are specifically marked as dog friendly? These will be available in the searches - eventually.

 

Of course, the data is only as good as those that put the attributes on them into the Geocaching.com database. If people are still using the Selector, those attributes will NOT be searchable. And if people don't include important attributes on their caches then the search criteria becomes less and less helpful.

 

Also...

 

I've said it before also, if everything is bold, nothing is bold - as can be seen by this post (I intentionally bolded everything to make my point).

 

We could have an attribute for people that have sensitive feet and can only walk 200 feet from the car to the cache.

We could have an attribute for caches that were placed by a cacher that just signed up less than a week ago.

We could have an attribute for caches that might have root protruding on the trails (better watch your step).

We could have an attribute where caches are within 5 miles of a working Pac Man game (I really like to play Pac Man after finding a cache).

 

Obviously, there CAN be too many attributes available. I would suggest that they be generalized and something that would be functional as a search feature.

 

So, would you exclude caches that might have mosquitos? Otherwise, why not just mention in the description that there are nasty mosquitos in the park? My understanding is not that the attributes are just an "informational" shorthand, but something that will help people determine if this is really the type of cache they want to look for.

 

If the ticks attribute could be broadened to include "need insect repellant" - I think that's fine. How about this:

 

 

Edited June 24, 2005 by Markwell

[Jeremy]

If the ticks attribute could be broadened to include "need insect repellant" - I think that's fine. How about this: [/size]

That's what I was going for. Broaden an existing attribute makes more sense than creating a bug icon for each pest.

 

I like your other icons, BTW.

 

And yes, there is a pinned thread about attributes. At the top of the thread is a short FAQ that references Pocket Queries having attributes when the next schema is created. We're actually waiting for the locationless solution to be introduced since we'll adapt the new GPX extensions for that solution.

[twjolson & Kay]

Obviously, there CAN be too many attributes available. I would suggest that they be generalized and something that would be functional as a search feature.

I agree that there is such a thing as too many attributes, however I believe the Mosquito is worthy of a new icon. However I will concede that a broader icon and attribute then just mosquitos would be better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think expanding the Tick icon would work. Ticks don't get repelled by Off! and such. Although I could be wrong for sure. I would put my vote behind a new Bug Spray attribute.

[+Markwell]

IIRC, deet masks the inherent ordors that attract biting insects (CO2?) Deet is best for going after mosquitos. Pemethrin is the choice for clothing if you're going to be in tick country.

 

But if you look at the icon I suggested:

it shows a can of spray and a bug. That could simply imply that you need some type of chemical to repel or deter insects/arachnids. If I saw that icon regarding mosquitos, I'd probably apply my permethrin as well.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Markwell

[+Lux]

A bug spray attribute is probably more fitting and inclusive. What do you think?

This comment is probably the most helpful one in this thread. Instead of attacking the idea, it offered a tangible way to deal with it. Might it be a good idea to have a generic "pest" attribute and have the writeup state the problem/issue related to the site.

 

If there are issues with scorpions in the area. You might want to issue a "pest" attribute and state the local problem.