Can We Add A New Cache Type?

[+Jhwk]

I'm beginning to think I would like to see a new cache type added to the list of the traditional caches we now have. Maybe we could call it the water cache or special cache or equipment cache.

 

I normally blast about 600 caches to my GPSr and Palm for caching opportunities near home and while I travel (frequently). Recently, I have found myself getting ready to go to the next closest caches, only to find that it requires a boat, or climbing gear, or clown suit, or some other item I just don't happen to have tucked in my trunk. Just today I went 7/10, with the three being boat only caches. Would be nice to be able to filter these caches as needed like micros or multi's or (insert your hated cache type here).

 

I know this is more difficult than just flipping a switch, but I would appreciate all of your thoughts. and yes, I still consider myself a newbie, so flame away if you need to.

[+ajayhawkfan]

I'm beginning to think I would like to see a new cache type added to the list of the traditional caches we now have. Maybe we could call it the water cache or special cache or equipment cache.

 

I normally blast about 600 caches to my GPSr and Palm for caching opportunities near home and while I travel (frequently). Recently, I have found myself getting ready to go to the next closest caches, only to find that it requires a boat, or climbing gear, or clown suit, or some other item I just don't happen to have tucked in my trunk. Just today I went 7/10, with the three being boat only caches. Would be nice to be able to filter these caches as needed like micros or multi's or (insert your hated cache type here).

 

I know this is more difficult than just flipping a switch, but I would appreciate all of your thoughts. and yes, I still consider myself a newbie, so flame away if you need to.

A cache with a 5 star terrain should mean special equipment is needed. Is if you run a PQ up to a 4.5 terrain that should limit your cache to ones that don't need special equipment.

[+gof1]

I like the idea.

A cache that requires that level of dedication deserves its own catigory.

But you should ask on the web site forum.

[+Jhwk]

I'm beginning to think I would like to see a new cache type added to the list of the traditional caches we now have. Maybe we could call it the water cache or special cache or equipment cache.

 

I normally blast about 600 caches to my GPSr and Palm for caching opportunities near home and while I travel (frequently). Recently, I have found myself getting ready to go to the next closest caches, only to find that it requires a boat, or climbing gear, or clown suit, or some other item I just don't happen to have tucked in my trunk. Just today I went 7/10, with the three being boat only caches. Would be nice to be able to filter these caches as needed like micros or multi's or (insert your hated cache type here).

 

I know this is more difficult than just flipping a switch, but I would appreciate all of your thoughts. and yes, I still consider myself a newbie, so flame away if you need to.

A cache with a 5 star terrain should mean special equipment is needed. Is if you run a PQ up to a 4.5 terrain that should limit your cache to ones that don't need special equipment.

"should" and do are two different things. And I like to do more difficult caches occasionally. The hardest cache close to me requires spending the night in the wildness on a 14 mile round trip hike. But it doesn't require special equipment.

[+CJOttawa]

I'm beginning to think I would like to see a new cache type added to the list of the traditional caches we now have. Maybe we could call it the water cache or special cache or equipment cache.

 

I normally blast about 600 caches to my GPSr and Palm for caching opportunities near home and while I travel (frequently). Recently, I have found myself getting ready to go to the next closest caches, only to find that it requires a boat, or climbing gear, or clown suit, or some other item I just don't happen to have tucked in my trunk. Just today I went 7/10, with the three being boat only caches. Would be nice to be able to filter these caches as needed like micros or multi's or (insert your hated cache type here).

 

I know this is more difficult than just flipping a switch, but I would appreciate all of your thoughts. and yes, I still consider myself a newbie, so flame away if you need to.

 

I'm a newb but with you entirely.

 

An EASY boat trip cache should NOT get a FIVE for difficulty or terrain. A DIFFICULT boat trip through class-five whitewater SHOULD get the five rating. In both cases, specialty equipment is needed but one requires extraordinary SKILL.

 

I'm in full support of your idea though I'd like to see it implimented as a "tag" of some kind for this reason: it could STILL be a micro, multi or traditional but these would have nothing to do with the gear needed.

 

Come to think of it, aren't there little tags an owner can set for a cache? I've seen the "nighttime/daytime" and "kid friendly" tags. Isn't there one for boats & scuba gear?

 

This really goes more to diligent use of the tags by the owner and careful review by the reviewers.

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe instead of adding another cache type, we could get The Frog Who Must Remain Nameless to add another attribute? Something along the lines of "Might require special equipment". Naturally this would require some effort on the hiders to adjust their attributes, but the end result would be you could submit a PQ with the box for that attribute unchecked.

Just thinking out loud...

[+briansnat]

An EASY boat trip cache should NOT get a FIVE for difficulty or terrain. A DIFFICULT boat trip through class-five whitewater SHOULD get the five rating. In both cases, specialty equipment is needed but one requires extraordinary SKILL.

 

 

The criteria for 5 star terrain states:

 

Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

It doesn't say EXTRAORDINARY skill, only specialized. If you've ever watched someone get into a canoe or rowboat for the first time you realize that there is a learning curve involved. Heck, I've been trying to teach my wife to row a boat and she still can't after 12 years. She gets in and starts going in circles.

 

Before we had attributes, the difficulty rating was pretty much the only way to indicate that specialized equipment/skill was needed. It's an imperfect system but its the one we use. Filtering out 5 star terrain should eliminate boat caches provided the owner rated the cache correctly. Some don't, but no system will catch owners who do not use it properly.

 

Maybe instead of adding another cache type, we could get The Frog Who Must Remain Nameless to add another attribute? Something along the lines of "Might require special equipment

 

We already have attributes for 'boat required, 'SCUBA', 'bicycle', '4WD','Climbing Gear',

'Snowmobile' and more. What more do we need?

[+palmetto]

What you want already exists. Getting owners to use it (attributes and 5 terrain where special equipment is required) is a whole 'nother story. When I review a boat cache I always mention that the terrain should be 5 for the boat, and the attribute for boat would be nice. When I review a terrain rated 1 I always mention that 1 should = wheelchair access and if it really is wheelchair accessible, then the attribute should be used for those who filter on it. That's all I can do. Some owners respond, some don't.

 

I review in Florida, and I'm kinda tired of the use of the snowmobile and the winter access attribute here, and the scuba access on caches that aren't anywhere near water. People think this is funny, but then when THEY want to filter on attributes for travel, the humor fades a bit.

[+art begotti]

is it possible to filter out attributes from PQ's? (having only made one, i can't remember for the life of me.)

[Mushtang]

"should" and do are two different things.

So what makes you think people will correctly select a new equipment type when they "should", when they can't select the correct terrain rating like they "should"?

[+briansnat]

is it possible to filter out attributes from PQ's? (having only made one, i can't remember for the life of me.)

 

Yes.

[+tozainamboku]

is it possible to filter out attributes from PQ's? (having only made one, i can't remember for the life of me.)

 

Yes.

 

I really, really, hate to disagree with briansnat, since he is always right. But - while you can find caches with the boat required attribute using PQs you can't filter out the caches that have the boat requirede attribute. Instead you get the caches with the boat not required attribute set - which is none since you can't set boat not required. This is a know problem with PQ filtering of attributes and it ought to be fixed.

[+briansnat]

is it possible to filter out attributes from PQ's? (having only made one, i can't remember for the life of me.)

 

Yes.

 

I really, really, hate to disagree with briansnat, since he is always right. But - while you can find caches with the boat required attribute using PQs you can't filter out the caches that have the boat requirede attribute. Instead you get the caches with the boat not required attribute set - which is none since you can't set boat not required. This is a know problem with PQ filtering of attributes and it ought to be fixed.

 

So that's why my PQs are always screwed up!

[+Criminal]

If you've ever watched someone get into a canoe or rowboat for the first time you realize that there is a learning curve involved. Heck, I've been trying to teach my wife to row a boat and she still can't after 12 years. She gets in and starts going in circles.

 

If you'd stop making her hold your hand, maybe she could row the boat straighter.

 

[+briansnat]

If you've ever watched someone get into a canoe or rowboat for the first time you realize that there is a learning curve involved. Heck, I've been trying to teach my wife to row a boat and she still can't after 12 years. She gets in and starts going in circles.

 

If you'd stop making her hold your hand, maybe she could row the boat straighter.

 

 

She's holding my beer.

[ParentsofSAM]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

[+Sue Gremlin]

We already have attributes for 'boat required, 'SCUBA', 'bicycle', '4WD','Climbing Gear',

'Snowmobile' and more. What more do we need?

Well, the OP does mention clown suits.

[+Miragee]

If you use the Smart Name option in GSAK, you can tell from a glance at your GPSr if the cache is rated a '5', so you could know that before you drive to the location if you are navigating to the "Next Nearest."

 

Just a thought . . .

[+wimseyguy]

If you've ever watched someone get into a canoe or rowboat for the first time you realize that there is a learning curve involved. Heck, I've been trying to teach my wife to row a boat and she still can't after 12 years. She gets in and starts going in circles.

 

If you'd stop making her hold your hand, maybe she could row the boat straighter.

 

 

She's holding my beer.

Brian, I'm sure it was funny for the first two or three years, but don't you think it's about time you give her the other oar now?

 

Back OT- You can't make hiders properly rate their caches, but if the boat is required than it should be a 5*. Are there so 5* caches in your area that you cannot take the time to scan those few cache pages before heading out? Heck, I've watchlisted most of the really really hard caches around here becasue I enjoy seeing the rare logs on them.

[+freakmanhere]

forget the boat. strip of your close and swim after it . just hope no other cachers see you strip or you can never go to another event again. Not that I would know

[+Markwell]

I really, really, hate to disagree with briansnat, since he is always right. But - while you can find caches with the boat required attribute using PQs you can't filter out the caches that have the boat requirede attribute. Instead you get the caches with the boat not required attribute set - which is none since you can't set boat not required. This is a know problem with PQ filtering of attributes and it ought to be fixed.

 

Yep.

 

I've often said that the attributes are three settings: Yes, No and Neither. Currently they can be set as such.

= Dogs Allowed

= No Dogs Allowed

and the N/R setting with will leave the icon completely off of the cache ("not related")

 

But when you query against the information, you need more choices:

• Only Return Caches that have the DOGS ALLOWED attribute
  
• Only Return Caches that do NOT have DOGS ALLOWED attribute
  
• Only Return Caches that have NO DOGS ALLOWED attribute
  
• Only Return Caches that do NOT have NO DOGS ALLOWED
  
• Ignore DOGS ALLOWED and NO DOGS ALLOWED
  

...which is five choices for each attribute that has a yes/no possibility. While it is subtle, there is definitely a different between returning caches that do NOT have DOGS ALLOWED attribute and returning caches that have NO DOGS ALLOWED attribute.

 

In those that just have Yes/NR possibilities, you need three choices:

• Only Return Caches that have the attribute ()
  
• Only Return Caches that do NOT have the attribute ()
  
• Ignore the attribute ()
  

But the PQ generator has the option of

 

Returning the caches where the Boat Required attribute is absent is different than returning caches with a Boat Required attribute set to "NO". And since the user cannot set the Boat Required attribute to NO, any query that asks for such a cache will return NO caches.

 

Yes, please fix this.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Markwell

[Clan Riffster]

We already have attributes for 'boat required, 'SCUBA', 'bicycle', '4WD','Climbing Gear',

'Snowmobile' and more. What more do we need?

I was thinking of an attribute that is more generalized, which would let the cachers know they can't just walk to it and sign the log.

Not only would this apply to those caches requiring SCUBA equipment, but it would also apply to those caches which require a kayak, a flashlight, a climbing tree stand or a beefy 4X4. Something to let the community know they need to read the description before heading out. Maybe a picture of a book would work for the attribute icon?

I've never actually come across this problem myself, since, like ParentsOfSam, I read the cache page before I make the drive.

 

Just $0.02 from the ol' fat guy.

[+Markwell]

I've often said that the attributes are three settings: Yes, No and Neither.

...

any query that asks for such a cache will return NO caches.

 

Yes, please fix this.

 

Thinking some more on this. IMO, the Right™ way to do this would be a revamp of the attributes on the PQs. We should be able to refine this with a section of which attributes and settings we can INCLUDE, and which we can EXCLUDE.

 

Let's say I'm taking a 3-year-old that has a mortal fear of dogs caching. If every cache had the right attributes chose, I could choose to INCLUDE...

*Recommended for kids

*Takes less than an hour

*Available at all times

*Wheelchair accessible

*Stroller accessible

*Dogs Not Allowed

 

Then I'd EXCLUDE...

*Climbing gear

*Boat

*Scuba gear

*Dangerous area

*Thorns

 

The end result:

 

Admittedly, this isn't the BEST example, but you can see how you would need to be able to pick between including or excluding certain attributes. Then make the icons match the possibilities. If the item is a "Present or N/R" attribute, don't let the PQ page allow you to choose a "NO" version.

 

Everything left unclicked (grey) would be ignored on both the include and exclude.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Markwell

[+fly46]

I've always hated the less than an hour attribute, Markwell..

And your example shows why.. Because every three year old I've ever met would tell you there's quite a difference between 10 minutes and 59 and, well, 59 minutes is still less than an hour. Personally, I'd like to see a "takes less than 5 minutes" button and a "takes less than 30 minutes button"....

[+Jhwk]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

[+Jhwk]

An EASY boat trip cache should NOT get a FIVE for difficulty or terrain. A DIFFICULT boat trip through class-five whitewater SHOULD get the five rating. In both cases, specialty equipment is needed but one requires extraordinary SKILL.

 

 

The criteria for 5 star terrain states:

 

Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

It doesn't say EXTRAORDINARY skill, only specialized. If you've ever watched someone get into a canoe or rowboat for the first time you realize that there is a learning curve involved. Heck, I've been trying to teach my wife to row a boat and she still can't after 12 years. She gets in and starts going in circles.

 

Before we had attributes, the difficulty rating was pretty much the only way to indicate that specialized equipment/skill was needed. It's an imperfect system but its the one we use. Filtering out 5 star terrain should eliminate boat caches provided the owner rated the cache correctly. Some don't, but no system will catch owners who do not use it properly.

 

Maybe instead of adding another cache type, we could get The Frog Who Must Remain Nameless to add another attribute? Something along the lines of "Might require special equipment

 

We already have attributes for 'boat required, 'SCUBA', 'bicycle', '4WD','Climbing Gear',

'Snowmobile' and more. What more do we need?

 

And by that reasoning, every 1/1 cache is handicap accessible.

 

off topic, but I think a 1/1 microcache should be impossible. It's a micro cache! That deserves a two from jump street.

 

back OT - sorry, I don't look at the attributes either. They just don't transfer over to my palm very well.

[+Yellow ants]

And by that reasoning, every 1/1 cache is handicap accessible.

 

There's a whole 'nother rant right there

 

I did a Terrain 1 that required scaling an approx. 1m tall concrete wall and then walking 15 metres uphill through small trees and bushes to find the cache. Not exactly an Ironman, but pretty hard to do in a wheelchair. Remember folks: Terrain 1 means IT DOESN'T GET ANY EASIER THAN THIS!

Edited July 19, 2006 by Yellow ants

[+briansnat]

And by that reasoning, every 1/1 cache is handicap accessible.

 

There's a whole 'nother rant right there

 

I did a Terrain 1 that required scaling an approx. 1m tall concrete wall and then walking 15 metres uphill through small trees and bushes to find the cache. Not exactly an Ironman, but pretty hard to do in a wheelchair. Remember folks: Terrain 1 means IT DOESN'T GET ANY EASIER THAN THIS!

 

Any system depends on people using it correctly.

 

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

 

How would a new cache type help then? If you aren't looking a Cachemate until the last minute it really doesn't matter whether special equipment is designated using the terrain rating, a cache type or an attribute.

 

Anyway, you're not talking about adding one cache type, you're talking about adding 4.

 

Currently we have 4 available cache types. Traditional (cache is at posted coordinates), Multi (need to visit several locations to obtain final coordinates), Mystery/puzzle (cache is not at posted coordinates) and Letterbox Hybrid (cache is also a letterbox).

 

You'd need to add 4 more. Traditional/Special equipment, Puzzle/Special equipment, Mystery/special equipment and Letterbox/special eqipment.

 

Following your logic, strong arguments could be made for converting nearly any attribute into a cache type. Handicap accessible, dangerous area, night caches, etc... This would mean dozens of cache types. Its hard enough getting people to use the current system correctly. Imagine what they will do if it were to get more complex.

[+Jhwk]

And by that reasoning, every 1/1 cache is handicap accessible.

 

There's a whole 'nother rant right there

 

I did a Terrain 1 that required scaling an approx. 1m tall concrete wall and then walking 15 metres uphill through small trees and bushes to find the cache. Not exactly an Ironman, but pretty hard to do in a wheelchair. Remember folks: Terrain 1 means IT DOESN'T GET ANY EASIER THAN THIS!

 

Any system depends on people using it correctly.

 

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

 

Currently we have 4 available cache types. Traditional (cache is at posted coordinates), Multi (need to visit several locations to obtain final coordinates), Mystery/puzzle (cache is not at posted coordinates) and Letterbox Hybrid (cache is also a letterbox).

 

You'd need to add 4 more. Traditional/Special equipment, Puzzle/Special equipment, Mystery/special equipment and Letterbox/special eqipment.

 

 

Actually, there are more than four.

Traditional Cache Multi-cache Virtual Cache Letterbox Hybrid Event Cache Unknown Cache Project APE Cache Webcam Cache Cache In Trash Out Event Earthcache Mega-Event Cache

 

and...

Small Large Micro Other Regular Unknown Virtual

 

and...

I haven't found I have found I don't own I own Are for members only Are not on my ignore list Are on my watch list Found in the last 7 days Have not been found Have Travel Bugs Updated in the last 7 days Is Not Active Is Active

 

Couldn't we just slip a "doesn't require special equipment or requires special equipment" in there somewhere?

[+Markwell]

This seems an attribute rather than a type.

 

But then again, if you've narrowed down your caches to <= 4.5 terrain and <=4.5 difficulty, and you're using a traditional cache, MOST LIKELY you'll be able to find the cache at the posted coordinates without anything more than the coordinates.

 

Right?

[+briansnat]

Actually, there are more than four.

Traditional Cache Multi-cache Virtual Cache Letterbox Hybrid Event Cache Unknown Cache Project APE Cache Webcam Cache Cache In Trash Out Event Earthcache Mega-Event Cache

 

and...

Small Large Micro Other Regular Unknown Virtual

 

and...

I haven't found I have found I don't own I own Are for members only Are not on my ignore list Are on my watch list Found in the last 7 days Have not been found Have Travel Bugs Updated in the last 7 days Is Not Active Is Active

 

Couldn't we just slip a "doesn't require special equipment or requires special equipment" in there somewhere?

 

By 4 types, I meant currently available for geocaches. I didn't include events or cache types that are no longer available to use.

 

Small, large, micro, regular, etc... are sizes, not types.

 

I think Markwell's proposed fix to the pocket queries would be a good solution for this.

[+KBI]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

Let me see if I understand this correctly: You're admitting that you knowingly choose not to take advantage of available information that might prevent your frustration and grief, but -- instead of taking responsibility for this and learning from it, you want the website owners to somehow try to protect you from your own refusal to do your homework?

[Mushtang]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

I posted this in another thread with the same topic in this forum....

 

Three questions for you:

 

Do you like going to see movies?

 

Do you ever just drop into a theater, buy a ticket for a random movie without knowing anything about the movie before hand?

 

If you did that, and didn't enjoy the movie, would you walk away saying, "there should be some way for me to know which movies are Action, which are Horror, and which are Romance, so I don't have to sit through another one of those again"?

[+Markwell]

The end result:

 

Admittedly, this isn't the BEST example, but you can see how you would need to be able to pick between including or excluding certain attributes. Then make the icons match the possibilities. If the item is a "Present or N/R" attribute, don't let the PQ page allow you to choose a "NO" version.

 

Everything left unclicked (grey) would be ignored on both the include and exclude.

And the more I think about this, the better it would seem to have the exclude as a possibility along with the include. The include is much more restrictive - for example, only INCLUDE the caches that have the "ticks" would be a small subset. (who would want to cache only where there's ticks?!?)

If you exclude the ticks, you should get only the caches that DON'T have the "ticks" as an attribute.

[+Jhwk]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

I posted this in another thread with the same topic in this forum....

 

Three questions for you:

 

Do you like going to see movies?

 

Do you ever just drop into a theater, buy a ticket for a random movie without knowing anything about the movie before hand?

 

If you did that, and didn't enjoy the movie, would you walk away saying, "there should be some way for me to know which movies are Action, which are Horror, and which are Romance, so I don't have to sit through another one of those again"?

 

nice try, but there are, what, 4-5 new movies each week? When I fly into BWI or Reagan National I normally scope out the closest caches to my hotel, but from there it becomes the next closest cache hunt for me. I love the freedom of doing this and some of the neat locations it takes me.

 

So do I read all 500 cache descriptions for those closest to my travel destination? No - do you?

[+KBI]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

I posted this in another thread with the same topic in this forum....

 

Three questions for you:

 

Do you like going to see movies?

 

Do you ever just drop into a theater, buy a ticket for a random movie without knowing anything about the movie before hand?

 

If you did that, and didn't enjoy the movie, would you walk away saying, "there should be some way for me to know which movies are Action, which are Horror, and which are Romance, so I don't have to sit through another one of those again"?

 

nice try, but there are, what, 4-5 new movies each week? When I fly into BWI or Reagan National I normally scope out the closest caches to my hotel, but from there it becomes the next closest cache hunt for me.

Nice try, but the number of available movies (or caches) is not the point. The point is that most people don't intentionally go swooping into some random movie theater without knowing anything about the movie, then turn around and complain that it wasn't the type movie they wanted to see. Most people do a little research first, or, if they chose not to do the research, they accept the consequences.

 

I don't know about you, but I'd be a little too embarrassed to go storming up to the cinema manager saying "Hey, I thought 'United 93' was supposed to be a comedy!!"

 

 

I love the freedom of doing this and some of the neat locations it takes me.

Freedom is a beautiful thing, but ... with freedom comes responsibility. Intentionally depriving yourself of information the cache owner make available to you does not give you the right to demand that others increase their efforts in order to make up for your lack of effort.

 

 

So do I read all 500 cache descriptions for those closest to my travel destination? No - do you?

I can't speak for Mushtang (your question was directed at him), but as for me:

 

If I have a list of caches I think I might like to attempt -- no matter how many -- then I either (1) read the descriptions first so I'll know what I'm getting into, or (2) accept the consequences, if any, of NOT reading the descriptions. Doesn't that sound reasonable? Nobody is saying you HAVE to read 500 descriptions. The point is that if you choose not to read them, then you must accept responsibility for that decision.

 

It would seem by your actions that you'd rather just avoid the subject of personal responsibility. Not only did you make a lame attempt to twist the meaning of Mushtang's response to your earlier post -- you completely ignored my response to the same post.

 

Nice try.

[Mushtang]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

I posted this in another thread with the same topic in this forum....

 

Three questions for you:

 

Do you like going to see movies?

 

Do you ever just drop into a theater, buy a ticket for a random movie without knowing anything about the movie before hand?

 

If you did that, and didn't enjoy the movie, would you walk away saying, "there should be some way for me to know which movies are Action, which are Horror, and which are Romance, so I don't have to sit through another one of those again"?

 

nice try, but there are, what, 4-5 new movies each week? When I fly into BWI or Reagan National I normally scope out the closest caches to my hotel, but from there it becomes the next closest cache hunt for me. I love the freedom of doing this and some of the neat locations it takes me.

 

So do I read all 500 cache descriptions for those closest to my travel destination? No - do you?

No, I don't read all 500 cache descriptions either. That's absurd.

 

I do, however, load all 500 descriptions into a PDA, and then I have them with me. Most of the time I'll read the description before I hunt the cache, every now and then I don't. In those cases if I can't find the cache I'll turn on the PDA and read up.

 

Since you've loaded up your GPSr from a PQ, then you have all the information too. Since you choose to leave it home instead of taking it with you then you also choose the risk of looking for a cache that's not there - right?

 

If you reject the information that's been made available to you, why would you blame anything other than yourself when you fail to find the cache?

[+Jhwk]

How about reading the cache description before you head that way then you will know if it requires something that you do not have on hand.

As I said in the opening, I do a lot of travel and cache by opportunity - or "next closest cache" caching as I like to think of it.

 

It's spontaneous, I'm not always connected to the internet, I detest reading every cache page before I go out, and it's a total buzz kill.

 

When I get ready to find the next cache, I look at my cachemate and THEN realize that I forgot my boat.

I posted this in another thread with the same topic in this forum....

 

Three questions for you:

 

Do you like going to see movies?

 

Do you ever just drop into a theater, buy a ticket for a random movie without knowing anything about the movie before hand?

 

If you did that, and didn't enjoy the movie, would you walk away saying, "there should be some way for me to know which movies are Action, which are Horror, and which are Romance, so I don't have to sit through another one of those again"?

 

nice try, but there are, what, 4-5 new movies each week? When I fly into BWI or Reagan National I normally scope out the closest caches to my hotel, but from there it becomes the next closest cache hunt for me. I love the freedom of doing this and some of the neat locations it takes me.

 

So do I read all 500 cache descriptions for those closest to my travel destination? No - do you?

No, I don't read all 500 cache descriptions either. That's absurd.

 

I do, however, load all 500 descriptions into a PDA, and then I have them with me. Most of the time I'll read the description before I hunt the cache, every now and then I don't. In those cases if I can't find the cache I'll turn on the PDA and read up.

 

Since you've loaded up your GPSr from a PQ, then you have all the information too. Since you choose to leave it home instead of taking it with you then you also choose the risk of looking for a cache that's not there - right?

 

If you reject the information that's been made available to you, why would you blame anything other than yourself when you fail to find the cache?

Did I say I left my PDA at home? Nope. this thread is dead and I want to quit beating the horse now.