Request for a new cache page attribute

3.3k · January 22, 2007

Hello Jeremy,

I bow down and respectfully request consideration of a new cache page attribute. The attribute that I request is for a "park and grab" or "parking lot geocache." attribute.

My reasoning for said attribute is to reduce the time needed to filter unwanted caches from my pocket queries. My current method is to filter caches by excluding all caches with a terrain rating of less than 2.5 stars. The problem is that this method weeds out quite a few caches that are on trails, but "terrain rated" lower than they should be.

If cachers simply added this new attribute, those of us cachers who prefer "park and hikes" as opposed to "park and grabs," would spend less time filtering PQs.

Thanks for your time, and thanks in advance for your consideration. :laughing:

January 22, 2007

i got to back him up on this one somtimes you want a long hike and other times you want to get as many in as you can.

14.3k · January 22, 2007

Hello Jeremy,

I bow down and respectfully request consideration of a new cache page attribute. The attribute that I request is for a "park and grab" or "parking lot geocache." attribute.

My reasoning for said attribute is to reduce the time needed to filter unwanted caches from my pocket queries. My current method is to filter caches by excluding all caches with a terrain rating of less than 2.5 stars. The problem is that this method weeds out quite a few caches that are on trails, but "terrain rated" lower than they should be.

If cachers simply added this new attribute, those of us cachers who prefer "park and hikes" as opposed to "park and grabs," would spend less time filtering PQs.

Thanks for your time, and thanks in advance for your consideration.

This would be helpful for me as well!

8k · January 22, 2007

I doubt this will work, in part since attributes are optional. It may help Kit Fox filter out easy caches in parking lots and other places he doesn't like cache while still letting him find the caches in a park or at the trailhead. Where he lives out in the desert, people hide 1/1 cache out in undeveloped areas. Most are park and grab distance from a dirt road. I'm suspecting that Kit Fox wants to keep these in his PQ and just avoid the caches where he doesn't get to drive off the pavement.

Some people don't mind urban caches, even ones in a parking lot, if there is something else that makes the cache worthwhile to them. It may be an original camo or hiding technique (just remember that a lightpost skirt was original once). Or there may be an interesting historic or cultural reason to visit the parking lot. Kit Fox and others object to the urban hide that seems to have know reason than to add to ones numbers. I realize there is also a concern about caches placed in parking lots without permission. I have personally been detained by a restaurant owner until the police arrive because he wasn't satisfied with the reason I gave for looking in his bushes. Perhaps we need a attribute for "Permission was explicitly received" :laughing: Or attributes for "Historic or culturally significant". You would probably have an unreasonably ong list of attributes if you really wanted to sort the cache that you might like from the ones you don't like.

I wonder why people tolerate unimaginative boring caches in rural hiking settings but object so strongly when an urban cache doesn't meet their expectations. I find an urban micro is much more likely to have some original hiding technique than the hiking cache to yet another ammo can under a bush. The urban hide may even be more likely to be an interesting location than most hiking caches - although I will admit that even when a hiking cache is not in the best location, the hike to the cache may have been what was enjoyable.

It would be nice to have a way to sort the urban caches to avoid the ones you don't like. I'm just not sure how to do this. BTW today I either DNF or skipped five caches on a hiking trail out of 14 caches, because the caches required too much bushwhacking and or bouldering to get to. Normally, I would have done these but today I just too tired to try. It was kind of an eye opener to decide to skip these caches the way I have skipped urban cache that I decided not to do when urban caching.

Edited January 22, 2007 by tozainamboku

24.7k · January 22, 2007

I know what you are saying. The problem is the same people who don't rate their caches correctly wouldn't do the attributes, or wouldn't do them correclty, or would focuse on the dog friendly, parkign, bathrooms etc before they got to park and grab. Some people who do rate their caches correctly don't use attributes.

If you filtered on terrain and attributes...not many results. That's what my crystal ball says. I could be wrong.

14.3k · January 22, 2007

It would be nice to have a way to sort the urban caches to avoid the ones you don't like. I'm just not sure how to do this.

It would be nice to find a way to filter these out. One thing I really like about Waymarking is the division of waymarks into categories. An approach like this would accomplish the same thing that the OP and others really want for geocaching and that is a way to segregate caches into groups that meet their interests. There could be a category called "Park and Grabs." The OP could pull PQs for another category called "Park and Hikes." Interesting urbans in historical locations could get a grouped into a category called "Historical caches." Anyhow, you get the idea.....Would this work?

3.3k · January 22, 2007

I doubt this will work, in part since attributes are optional. It may help Kit Fox filter out easy caches in parking lots and other places he doesn't like cache while still letting him find the caches in a park or at the trailhead. Where he lives out in the desert, people hide 1/1 cache out in undeveloped areas. Most are park and grab distance from a dirt road. I'm suspecting that Kit Fox wants to keep these in his PQ and just avoid the caches where he doesn't get to drive off the pavement.

I don't care for those much either.

The attribute would help me weed out parking lot caches faster. I derive zero pleasure from most parking lot caches. If there was a "historical" or "place of interest" attribute, that would be nice also.

I understand that some cachers would refuse to utilize this attribute. The attribute function is strictly voluntary, but so is placing caches for others to find.

January 23, 2007

The attribute would help me weed out parking lot caches faster. I derive zero pleasure from most parking lot caches. If there was a "historical" or "place of interest" attribute, that would be nice also.

I understand that some cachers would refuse to utilize this attribute. The attribute function is strictly voluntary, but so is placing caches for others to find.

It would probably be a little more extreme than you're wanting but you could exclude caches with the "Takes less than an hour" attribute. Again, this all hinges on people actually using the attributes and displaying the most relevant attributes first. Then again it's funny to look at a cache here in Phoenix and see "Snowmobiles allowed". :huh:

Jared

14.3k · January 23, 2007

The attribute would help me weed out parking lot caches faster. I derive zero pleasure from most parking lot caches. If there was a "historical" or "place of interest" attribute, that would be nice also.

I understand that some cachers would refuse to utilize this attribute. The attribute function is strictly voluntary, but so is placing caches for others to find.

It would probably be a little more extreme than you're wanting but you could exclude caches with the "Takes less than an hour" attribute. Again, this all hinges on people actually using the attributes and displaying the most relevant attributes first. Jared

We don't want to weed out caches with scenic views or caches at historical sites by doing it that way. :huh:

8k · January 23, 2007

It seems from the other thread that spawned this one that the problems isn't parking lot caches. (Although Kit Fox does seem to have a problem specifically with parking lot caches). Several in that thread seem to be willing to find a cache in a parking lot so long at the reason the cache was hidden there was "good". Of course everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what is a good reason. Perhaps when submitting a new cache, the owner should be required to check one or more boxes to indicate the reason they picked that location:

it's a scenic view
it has historic significance
it has cultural significance
it has geographic significance
it's at a favorite store/restaurant/chain/etc.
it's at or near my house or workplace
there weren't enough caches in this area
it's a challenge to get to
it's easy to get to
it's a challenge to find with all the muggles here
there aren't any muggles around
it's a nice walk to get to
it's a nice drive to get to

Then you could filter out the caches that didn't have a 'good' reason for being placed there. Of course people could be dishonest about the reason they placed the cache and some of the reasons may be open to interpretation but it would be a start.

Edited January 23, 2007 by tozainamboku

14.3k · January 24, 2007

It would be nice just to get an answer to the original request.... :huh:

January 24, 2007

It seems from the other thread that spawned this one that the problems isn't parking lot caches. (Although Kit Fox does seem to have a problem specifically with parking lot caches). Several in that thread seem to be willing to find a cache in a parking lot so long at the reason the cache was hidden there was "good". Of course everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what is a good reason. Perhaps when submitting a new cache, the owner should be required to check one or more boxes to indicate the reason they picked that location:

it's a scenic view

it has historic significance

it has cultural significance

it has geographic significance

it's at a favorite store/restaurant/chain/etc.

it's at or near my house or workplace

there weren't enough caches in this area

it's a challenge to get to

it's easy to get to

it's a challenge to find with all the muggles here

there aren't any muggles around

it's a nice walk to get to

it's a nice drive to get to

Then you could filter out the caches that didn't have a 'good' reason for being placed there. Of course people could be dishonest about the reason they placed the cache and some of the reasons may be open to interpretation but it would be a start.

How about *Because it was there. I'm sorry kitfox doesn't like a parking lot cache. So what. Just because someone placed it doesn't mean he has to go for it. I can tell from looking where a cache is located whether its in a parking lot or not, or whether I'll be through a jungle of wild roses like I did today. Geez lighten up.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Scouter Joe

14.3k · January 24, 2007

So what. Just because someone placed it doesn't mean he has to go for it. I can tell from looking where a cache is located whether its in a parking lot or not, or whether I'll be through a jungle of wild roses like I did today.

If you go after a couple of caches in a day it's no big deal. However, if you are going on a long drive or don't have time to pre-inspect the cache area with Google Earth, then this attribute would eliminate hundreds of caches all at once. If you don't want the attribute then don't filter your PQs with it. :huh:

Edited January 24, 2007 by TrailGators

3.3k · January 24, 2007

So what. Just because someone placed it doesn't mean he has to go for it. I can tell from looking where a cache is located whether its in a parking lot or not, or whether I'll be through a jungle of wild roses like I did today.
If you go after a couple of caches in a day it's no big deal. However, if you are going on a long drive or don't have time to pre-inspect the cache area with Google Earth, then this attribute would eliminate hundreds of caches all at once. If you don't want the attribute then don't filter your PQs with it.

Scouter Joe,

I weed most of these caches by filtering pocket queries of caches with anything less than a 2.5 terrain rating. Any cache with a terrain of less than that gets a thorough investigation, before I decide to hunt it or not.

I have dial-up, so I can't even use Google Earth.

In addition to the "Parking Lot" or "Park and Grab" Attribute, I'd support "A cache hidden just for the adding smilies" attribute.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Kit Fox

14.3k · January 24, 2007

So what. Just because someone placed it doesn't mean he has to go for it. I can tell from looking where a cache is located whether its in a parking lot or not, or whether I'll be through a jungle of wild roses like I did today.
If you go after a couple of caches in a day it's no big deal. However, if you are going on a long drive or don't have time to pre-inspect the cache area with Google Earth, then this attribute would eliminate hundreds of caches all at once. If you don't want the attribute then don't filter your PQs with it.

Scouter Joe,

I weed most of these caches by filtering pocket queries of caches with anything less than a 2.5 terrain rating. Any cache with a terrain of less than that gets a thorough investigation, before I decide to hunt it or not. I have dial-up, so I can't even use Google Earth.

In addition to the "Parking Lot" or "Park and Grab" Attribute, I'd support "A cache hidden just for the adding smilies" attribute.

Kit Fox, Google Earth resides on your PC so you can view PQs with it without being online. Maybe you can get one of your buddies to download Google Earth and to burn a cd for you. It is a handy tool to examine your PQ with. I typically use it to plan a hike. It seems silly to have to use it to delete a bunch of caches in parking lots. I like the attribute idea just because I won't have to waste my time because some people don't know how to hide a decent cache. Edited January 24, 2007 by TrailGators

8k · January 24, 2007

So what. Just because someone placed it doesn't mean he has to go for it. I can tell from looking where a cache is located whether its in a parking lot or not, or whether I'll be through a jungle of wild roses like I did today.
If you go after a couple of caches in a day it's no big deal. However, if you are going on a long drive or don't have time to pre-inspect the cache area with Google Earth, then this attribute would eliminate hundreds of caches all at once. If you don't want the attribute then don't filter your PQs with it.

Scouter Joe,

I weed most of these caches by filtering pocket queries of caches with anything less than a 2.5 terrain rating. Any cache with a terrain of less than that gets a thorough investigation, before I decide to hunt it or not. I have dial-up, so I can't even use Google Earth.

In addition to the "Parking Lot" or "Park and Grab" Attribute, I'd support "A cache hidden just for the adding smilies" attribute.

Kit Fox, Google Earth resides on your PC so you can view PQs with it without being online. Maybe you can get one of your buddies to download Google Earth and to burn a cd for you. It is a handy tool to examine your PQ with. I typically use it to plan a hike. It seems silly to have to use it to delete a bunch of caches in parking lots. I like the attribute idea just because I won't have to waste my time because some people don't know how to hide a decent cache.

Google Earth resides on your PC but it needs an internet connection to get the maps and topographic data. It probably would be unbearably slow on dial-up.

14.3k · January 24, 2007

So what. Just because someone placed it doesn't mean he has to go for it. I can tell from looking where a cache is located whether its in a parking lot or not, or whether I'll be through a jungle of wild roses like I did today.
If you go after a couple of caches in a day it's no big deal. However, if you are going on a long drive or don't have time to pre-inspect the cache area with Google Earth, then this attribute would eliminate hundreds of caches all at once. If you don't want the attribute then don't filter your PQs with it.

Scouter Joe,

I weed most of these caches by filtering pocket queries of caches with anything less than a 2.5 terrain rating. Any cache with a terrain of less than that gets a thorough investigation, before I decide to hunt it or not. I have dial-up, so I can't even use Google Earth.

In addition to the "Parking Lot" or "Park and Grab" Attribute, I'd support "A cache hidden just for the adding smilies" attribute.

Kit Fox, Google Earth resides on your PC so you can view PQs with it without being online. Maybe you can get one of your buddies to download Google Earth and to burn a cd for you. It is a handy tool to examine your PQ with. I typically use it to plan a hike. It seems silly to have to use it to delete a bunch of caches in parking lots. I like the attribute idea just because I won't have to waste my time because some people don't know how to hide a decent cache.

Google Earth resides on your PC but it needs an internet connection to get the maps and topographic data. It probably would be unbearably slow on dial-up.

Wow! Sorry about that Kit Fox! I guess my Internet connection is so fast I didn't realize that it was downloading maps. Is that true with the full version too? Edited January 24, 2007 by TrailGators

January 24, 2007

I would support your suggestion for this sort of an attribute.

I am planning on making a series called "Urban Assault" which is simple nano's and micros in the centre of the city. The more exposed, the better. An attribute like this would help very much to filter them oput for the more traditional geocacher.

Without an attribute, my plan is to prefix all names with "UA" for this cache series.

Regards, Ron

20.7k · January 24, 2007

It seems from the other thread that spawned this one that the problems isn't parking lot caches. (Although Kit Fox does seem to have a problem specifically with parking lot caches). Several in that thread seem to be willing to find a cache in a parking lot so long at the reason the cache was hidden there was "good". Of course everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what is a good reason. Perhaps when submitting a new cache, the owner should be required to check one or more boxes to indicate the reason they picked that location:
it's a scenic view

it has historic significance

it has cultural significance

it has geographic significance

it's at a favorite store/restaurant/chain/etc.

it's at or near my house or workplace

there weren't enough caches in this area

it's a challenge to get to

it's easy to get to

it's a challenge to find with all the muggles here

there aren't any muggles around

it's a nice walk to get to

it's a nice drive to get to

Then you could filter out the caches that didn't have a 'good' reason for being placed there. Of course people could be dishonest about the reason they placed the cache and some of the reasons may be open to interpretation but it would be a start.

Would each of these have it's own attribute to search on or would you simply search on whether or not any reason was given. If it is the latter, I suspect that the OP still would not be in favor.

14.3k · January 24, 2007

It seems from the other thread that spawned this one that the problems isn't parking lot caches. (Although Kit Fox does seem to have a problem specifically with parking lot caches). Several in that thread seem to be willing to find a cache in a parking lot so long at the reason the cache was hidden there was "good". Of course everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what is a good reason. Perhaps when submitting a new cache, the owner should be required to check one or more boxes to indicate the reason they picked that location:
it's a scenic view

it has historic significance

it has cultural significance

it has geographic significance

it's at a favorite store/restaurant/chain/etc.

it's at or near my house or workplace

there weren't enough caches in this area

it's a challenge to get to

it's easy to get to

it's a challenge to find with all the muggles here

there aren't any muggles around

it's a nice walk to get to

it's a nice drive to get to

Then you could filter out the caches that didn't have a 'good' reason for being placed there. Of course people could be dishonest about the reason they placed the cache and some of the reasons may be open to interpretation but it would be a start.

Would each of these have it's own attribute to search on or would you simply search on whether or not any reason was given. If it is the latter, I suspect that the OP still would not be in favor.

I think that people will pick the most flattering attibutes to descibe the kind of cache the OP is trying to avoid. So many people will classify parking lot micros as "it's a nice walk to get to." If they had to select at least three of those attributes then the best attributes they could pick for a parking lot micro would be: 1) It's a nice walk to get to. 2) It's a nice drive to get to; 3) It's at or near my house or workplace. This still doesn't help the OP. If you got rid of "It's at or near my house or workplace," which we really don't need then the best attributes they could pick for a parking lot micro would be: 1) It's a nice walk to get to. 2) It's a nice drive to get to; 3) It's a challenge to find with all the muggles here. I still don't think this helps the OP, but I do think the idea could work if you made it more bulletproof.

20.7k · January 24, 2007

I rather doubt that it could ever become very bulletproof. The problem will always remain that all cachers don't like the same things. Therefore, reasons that are good in one person's opinion, are not in others.

Edited January 24, 2007 by sbell111

24.7k · January 24, 2007

Having thought about it, this dovetails well with other requests to make micro's their own catagory. You would get more compliance and the best overall usefulness.

14.3k · January 24, 2007

I really think that the OPs original idea is the best!

Besides an attribute for "The cache is in a parking lot" we could also have attributes for:

1) Cache is in an area that has historical significance

2) Cache is behind a store or strip mall

3) There is a trash or a trash dumpster nearby

4) There are sometimes homeless people living near the cache

24.7k · January 24, 2007

I really think that the OPs original idea is the best!

Besides an attribute for "The cache is in a parking lot" we could also have attributes for:

1) Cache is in an area that has historical significance

2) Cache is behind a store or strip mall

3) There is a trash or a trash dumpster nearby

4) There are sometimes homeless people living near the cache

That's becoming a complex solution to a simple problem. For what you want you need "finder" attributs. That is you as a finder can post the attributes that you think fit the cache. The reason I say this is that finders are the ones having the problems. Not the placers.

Other finder attributes to consider.

A skunk for "this cache stinks"

A bum for "homeless nearby"

A Dollar sign for "Warning Strip Mall Devloper Wonderland"

A Clam for "BrianSnat would not approve"

A Can for "litter everywhere"

A Red Cross for "you are going to get hurt"

MgGruff the crime dog for "Lock your car and watch your back".

A Pickle for "Pickle Park"

and so on.

3.3k · January 24, 2007

It seems from the other thread that spawned this one that the problems isn't parking lot caches. (Although Kit Fox does seem to have a problem specifically with parking lot caches). Several in that thread seem to be willing to find a cache in a parking lot so long at the reason the cache was hidden there was "good". Of course everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what is a good reason. Perhaps when submitting a new cache, the owner should be required to check one or more boxes to indicate the reason they picked that location:
it's a scenic view

it has historic significance

it has cultural significance

it has geographic significance

it's at a favorite store/restaurant/chain/etc.

it's at or near my house or workplace

there weren't enough caches in this area

it's a challenge to get to

it's easy to get to

it's a challenge to find with all the muggles here

there aren't any muggles around

it's a nice walk to get to

it's a nice drive to get to

Then you could filter out the caches that didn't have a 'good' reason for being placed there. Of course people could be dishonest about the reason they placed the cache and some of the reasons may be open to interpretation but it would be a start.

Would each of these have it's own attribute to search on or would you simply search on whether or not any reason was given. If it is the latter, I suspect that the OP still would not be in favor.

I did some thinking overnight, and had a novel idea. If you visit www.realtor.com, and do an "advanced search" for a house using criteria like # of rooms, sq. footage, property size, etc, there search engine gives there search results a Percentage Score Result" If the house meets every criteria, it receives a 100% rating, if the house misses 25% of the requested items, it only gets 75% weighting.

Perhaps the programmers here a Groundspeak could create a similar system for "attribute based" Pocket Queries.

24.7k · January 24, 2007

....I did some thinking overnight, and had a novel idea. If you visit www.realtor.com, and do an "advanced search" for a house using criteria like # of rooms, sq. footage, property size, etc, there search engine gives there search results a Percentage Score Result" If the house meets every criteria, it receives a 100% rating, if the house misses 25% of the requested items, it only gets 75% weighting.

Perhaps the programmers here a Groundspeak could create a similar system for "attribute based" Pocket Queries.

The problem is keying in all that information so each cache is fully listed from every angle. Plus you would need to factor in some of the variations. A cache with a hike is going to be a different from all the other hike caches. Hikes have enjoyment levels that vary. It's not so easy and was discussed quit a bit on opencaching.com with no solution simple enough to actually be used. (Complex solutions that made it not worth the trouble did exist).

However This site is working on a way to have people say they liked the cache. Simple enough to do. You did or didn't. Then you could be shown other caches that people who liked the same caches you liked, but which you have not found. Simple and probably as effective as anything else for filtering caches. Stick that in a PQ and you are good to go.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Renegade Knight

20.7k · January 24, 2007

I really think that the OPs original idea is the best!

Besides an attribute for "The cache is in a parking lot" we could also have attributes for:

1) Cache is in an area that has historical significance

2) Cache is behind a store or strip mall

3) There is a trash or a trash dumpster nearby

4) There are sometimes homeless people living near the cache

That's becoming a complex solution to a simple problem. For what you want you need "finder" attributs. That is you as a finder can post the attributes that you think fit the cache. The reason I say this is that finders are the ones having the problems. Not the placers.

Other finder attributes to consider.

A skunk for "this cache stinks"

A bum for "homeless nearby"

A Dollar sign for "Warning Strip Mall Devloper Wonderland"

A Clam for "BrianSnat would not approve"

A Can for "litter everywhere"

A Red Cross for "you are going to get hurt"

MgGruff the crime dog for "Lock your car and watch your back".

A Pickle for "Pickle Park"

and so on.

I think the more this thread turns into goofiness, the less likely anyone will support any idea in it.

14.3k · January 24, 2007

I really think that the OPs original idea is the best!

Besides an attribute for "The cache is in a parking lot" we could also have attributes for:

1) Cache is in an area that has historical significance

2) Cache is behind a store or strip mall

3) There is a trash or a trash dumpster nearby

4) There are sometimes homeless people living near the cache

That's becoming a complex solution to a simple problem. For what you want you need "finder" attributs. That is you as a finder can post the attributes that you think fit the cache. The reason I say this is that finders are the ones having the problems. Not the placers.

Other finder attributes to consider.

A skunk for "this cache stinks"

A bum for "homeless nearby"

A Dollar sign for "Warning Strip Mall Devloper Wonderland"

A Clam for "BrianSnat would not approve"

A Can for "litter everywhere"

A Red Cross for "you are going to get hurt"

MgGruff the crime dog for "Lock your car and watch your back".

A Pickle for "Pickle Park"

and so on.

I think the more this thread turns into goofiness, the less likely anyone will support any idea in it.

Ahhh, don't be a stick in the mud Sbell. It's OK to laugh once and awhile!

By the way, I want nothing but Clams!

I'm still laughing about the Skunk attribute!

8k · January 24, 2007

I really think that the OPs original idea is the best!

Besides an attribute for "The cache is in a parking lot" we could also have attributes for:

1) Cache is in an area that has historical significance

2) Cache is behind a store or strip mall

3) There is a trash or a trash dumpster nearby

4) There are sometimes homeless people living near the cache

That's becoming a complex solution to a simple problem. For what you want you need "finder" attributs. That is you as a finder can post the attributes that you think fit the cache. The reason I say this is that finders are the ones having the problems. Not the placers.

Other finder attributes to consider.

A skunk for "this cache stinks"

A bum for "homeless nearby"

A Dollar sign for "Warning Strip Mall Devloper Wonderland"

A Clam for "BrianSnat would not approve"

A Can for "litter everywhere"

A Red Cross for "you are going to get hurt"

MgGruff the crime dog for "Lock your car and watch your back".

A Pickle for "Pickle Park"

and so on.

I think the more this thread turns into goofiness, the less likely anyone will support any idea in it.

Ahhh, don't be a stick in the mud Sbell. It's OK to laugh once and awhile!
By the way, I want nothing but Clams!

I'm still laughing about the Skunk attribute!

I'm not sure when to use the skunk attibute. There was the cache in the old jar of garlic powder. That stunk. Or the one I did this weekend whose theme was used wine bottle corks. It actually smelled quite nice.

2k · January 24, 2007

I really think that the OPs original idea is the best!

Besides an attribute for "The cache is in a parking lot" we could also have attributes for:

1) Cache is in an area that has historical significance

2) Cache is behind a store or strip mall

3) There is a trash or a trash dumpster nearby

4) There are sometimes homeless people living near the cache

That's becoming a complex solution to a simple problem. For what you want you need "finder" attributs. That is you as a finder can post the attributes that you think fit the cache. The reason I say this is that finders are the ones having the problems. Not the placers.

Other finder attributes to consider.

A skunk for "this cache stinks"

A bum for "homeless nearby"

A Dollar sign for "Warning Strip Mall Devloper Wonderland"

A Clam for "BrianSnat would not approve"

A Can for "litter everywhere"

A Red Cross for "you are going to get hurt"

MgGruff the crime dog for "Lock your car and watch your back".

A Pickle for "Pickle Park"

and so on.

I think the more this thread turns into goofiness, the less likely anyone will support any idea in it.

Ahhh, don't be a stick in the mud Sbell. It's OK to laugh once and awhile!
By the way, I want nothing but Clams!

I'm still laughing about the Skunk attribute!

I'm not sure when to use the skunk attibute. There was the cache in the old jar of garlic powder. That stunk. Or the one I did this weekend whose theme was used wine bottle corks. It actually smelled quite nice.

Don't you mean "It stunk good"?

14.3k · January 25, 2007

This cache stinks!

Edited January 25, 2007 by TrailGators

14.3k · January 25, 2007

Briansnat Would Not Approve

14.3k · February 4, 2007

I created an icon for this new attribute:

February 5, 2007

Is there any realistic chance that new attributes of any type will be added? I don't know the last time an attribute was added, but I know there are a number of ideas for new attributes floating around on the forums ... are we wasting our time by hoping that someday our prints will come?

3.3k · February 5, 2007

Is there any realistic chance that new attributes of any type will be added? I don't know the last time an attribute was added, but I know there are a number of ideas for new attributes floating around on the forums ... are we wasting our time by hoping that someday our prints will come?

I'm starting to think that the lack of "any response" from TPTB indicates no changes will be made. :laughing:

14.3k · February 5, 2007

Is there any realistic chance that new attributes of any type will be added? I don't know the last time an attribute was added, but I know there are a number of ideas for new attributes floating around on the forums ... are we wasting our time by hoping that someday our prints will come?

I'm starting to think that the lack of "any response" from TPTB indicates no changes will be made.

I doubted that they would do it. To be honest, I almost never use attributes to filter caches. If the terrain is over 2, I pretty much know what to expect. Out here most of those will be a hike with ticks and snakes and thony plants. Some will have poison oak but PO never stops me until I get to the cache location and see how bad it really is. Some will have scenic views and that is always a bonus. However, I would have used this cache is in a parking lot attribute.....Oh well.... :laughing:

Request for a new cache page attribute

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