Underwater Cache Attribute Icon

[+Paerole]

I was thinking recently that it may be a good idea to have a new attribute icon added for caches that are placed underwater but are not deep enough to require scuba gear. Currently we have two attribute icons which can sort of be used to label an underwater cache (swimming required, and scuba gear required) but these are both on the extreme and offer no middle ground.

 

This new icon would be referring to caches placed under water that are between 5-20ft deep (easily retrieved without any additional gear). If we were to have this added as an attribute icon it would be much easier to locate these caches, as it would give the ability to find by running a PQ for the underwater attribute. I am in the very near future going to be placing some caches around my city that would fit this description, as well as a friend of mine who has already started placing.

 

Just a suggestion, would love to see what other people think of this.

[+T.D.M.22]

I was thinking recently that it may be a good idea to have a new attribute icon added for caches that are placed underwater but are not deep enough to require scuba gear. Currently we have two attribute icons which can sort of be used to label an underwater cache (swimming required, and scuba gear required) but these are both on the extreme and offer no middle ground.

 

This new icon would be referring to caches placed under water that are between 5-20ft deep (easily retrieved without any additional gear).

 

5-20 feet? I consider anything past my waist to be swimming. And I'm sure that anyone in 10-20 feet of water is swimming.

 

These attributes are enough. If we have an attribute for everything, then we would have hundreds. One for a cache out of reach so you need a ladder. One for a cache that's in a tree, but you don't have to climb it. One for a cache that is camo'd and looks like it should be there. One for caches in cemeteries, near trains stations, on statues.

 

There more attributes we have, the more attributes there are that won't be used properly.

 

Plus the fact that when I look at the maps and the cache is over a river and there's no bridge, I'll assume it's in the water.

[+cerberus1]

I'm good with the attributes as-is.

We've done a few swim hides that had the container down to 20'

- and I'm a smoker , but swim a lot.

Some brought scuba to access the same hides.

So using either or both attributes seems fine.

[+Paerole]

This is more so in the interest of making these caches more accessible. Up a tree without a ladder or whatever other descriptions given are a little bit different than an underwater cache that doesn't require scuba gear. The reason I say this is because "Requires swimming" is going to pull A LOT more caches in a PQ than will be underwater caches as there are lots of island caches and various other water bound caches which require swimming but are not diving caches/underwater caches. That being said also marking underwater caches that are 5-20 feet would not be appropriate to use scuba gear required attribute as they don't require scuba gear.

 

Cache out of reach needs ladder = may require climbing and this is definitely a fair application especially in comparison to having an underwater cache icon.

 

Cache in a tree that you don't have to climb = winter friendly, this is just a general hide, again this is not really comparable.

 

All of the rest of the examples given are just general caches and are not comparable to an underwater cache situation where there is no middle ground, they are just standard hides. Underwater caches would likely be more prevalent than scuba gear required caches even, so why not, if there are too many icons as you say, change 'requires scuba gear' to 'underwater cache' and then just have 'requires scuba gear' in the description so that non-scuba underwater caches can be PQ'd?

[team tisri]

This is more so in the interest of making these caches more accessible. Up a tree without a ladder or whatever other descriptions given are a little bit different than an underwater cache that doesn't require scuba gear. The reason I say this is because "Requires swimming" is going to pull A LOT more caches in a PQ than will be underwater caches as there are lots of island caches and various other water bound caches which require swimming but are not diving caches/underwater caches. That being said also marking underwater caches that are 5-20 feet would not be appropriate to use scuba gear required attribute as they don't require scuba gear.

 

Cache out of reach needs ladder = may require climbing and this is definitely a fair application especially in comparison to having an underwater cache icon.

 

Cache in a tree that you don't have to climb = winter friendly, this is just a general hide, again this is not really comparable.

 

All of the rest of the examples given are just general caches and are not comparable to an underwater cache situation where there is no middle ground, they are just standard hides. Underwater caches would likely be more prevalent than scuba gear required caches even, so why not, if there are too many icons as you say, change 'requires scuba gear' to 'underwater cache' and then just have 'requires scuba gear' in the description so that non-scuba underwater caches can be PQ'd?

 

That's what the cache text is for.

 

The attributes of "swimming required", "wading required" and "scuba gear" cover just about any situation imaginable where the cache is in or over a body of water. As someone already said if you start putting attributes for every permutation you end up with silly numbers of attributes, and the ones we have often aren't used.

 

As soon as you start trying to figure out what might be required and how accessible something is you're trying to determine the capabilities of the individual cacher. For me a cache 20 feet under the water means I'd want some kind of equipment but 5 feet under and I'd swim down to it if I wanted it. Use the attributes to indicate the kind of hide it might be so it can be coarsely filtered in pocket queries, then use the cache text to describe the location in as much or as little detail as you want.

 

To take an example, if I see a cache apparently over a river where there's a bridge I'll expect it to be on the bridge, or reachable from the bridge. If it's got a high terrain rating and an attribute that suggests swimming or wading might be required I'll expect it to be under the bridge. If it mentions diving gear I'll assume it's under the water somewhere probably near the bridge.

 

I could see some merit in replacing the "scuba gear" attribute with one that more explicitly shows a cache that is under the water that may or may not require diving gear - that way people know they're going to have to get wet to find it and can decide for themselves what, if any, specialist equipment they might need.

[+Paerole]

Exactly what I mean, underwater caches that are accessible by a basic dive without scuba gear are much more prevalent than scuba gear caches yet the relationship is not reflexive. For example you can label a scuba cache and underwater cache but you cannot (or should not) label a basic dive that doesn't require scuba gear a 'scuba gear' cache. It would make much more sense, if it's such a huge problem to add one more icon for an underwater cache, to change the scuba gear icon into an underwater icon and then have the description detail whether it required gear or not, this would make it MUCH easier to locate underwater caches.

 

The problem with PQing 'may require swimming' is there are A LOT of caches that may require swimming but are not underwater. It would take a lot of work to filter through these. Having a diving/underwater cache that doesn't require scuba gear is a much more unique situation/attribute worthy than the other examples listed above which would justifiably be labeled with icons such as 'may need to climb' or whatever else as there is not as big a difference between those as there is between 'needs scuba gear' or 'may require swimming' and 'underwater cache' (no scuba gear required).

 

For example if you were to PQ for 'may need to swim' attribute you are likely going to pull hundreds of caches that may require swimming to an island or something of that nature, there are TONS of them, to go through that entire list looking for the underwater caches would be unnecessarily time consuming and difficult when there could just as easily be an icon added for an underwater cache (or at the very least have the scuba icon changed to a general underwater cache as 'scuba gear required' is much too specific and there are sooo few of these caches that even exist).

[+The A-Team]

...underwater caches that are accessible by a basic dive without scuba gear are much more prevalent than scuba gear caches...

This will vary widely by region. For example, there are 12 true scuba-required caches within 100 km of my home, and only 1 cache that I know of that would qualify as a shallow-water dive. Doing a PQ centred on your first hide results in 4 with the scuba attribute, none of which are even underwater. From what you're saying, though, it sounds like you have a lot of shallow-water underwater caches in your area.

 

My opinion is that if a cache is underwater but doesn't require scuba gear, it should be tagged with the swimming attribute and have further details outlined in the description. Anyone going for a high-terrain cache will most likely (and should) be reading the description before heading out anyway.

 

Edit to add: I forgot to mention that when I was running some PQs, I found that there are 52 swimming-attribute caches within 100 km of your first hide, so there really aren't that many to look through one-by-one.

Edited June 7, 2013 by The A-Team

[+T.D.M.22]

This is more so in the interest of making these caches more accessible. Up a tree without a ladder or whatever other descriptions given are a little bit different than an underwater cache that doesn't require scuba gear. The reason I say this is because "Requires swimming" is going to pull A LOT more caches in a PQ than will be underwater caches as there are lots of island caches and various other water bound caches which require swimming but are not diving caches/underwater caches. That being said also marking underwater caches that are 5-20 feet would not be appropriate to use scuba gear required attribute as they don't require scuba gear.

 

Cache out of reach needs ladder = may require climbing and this is definitely a fair application especially in comparison to having an underwater cache icon.

 

Cache in a tree that you don't have to climb = winter friendly, this is just a general hide, again this is not really comparable.

 

All of the rest of the examples given are just general caches and are not comparable to an underwater cache situation where there is no middle ground, they are just standard hides. Underwater caches would likely be more prevalent than scuba gear required caches even, so why not, if there are too many icons as you say, change 'requires scuba gear' to 'underwater cache' and then just have 'requires scuba gear' in the description so that non-scuba underwater caches can be PQ'd?

 

Again that's where this comes in

 

Plus the fact that when I look at the maps and the cache is over a river and there's no bridge, I'll assume it's in the water.

 

Look at the maps. A cache on land could have any or all of the available attributes(except the water ones) so a PQ is an efficient way to sort these. But a cache on a body of water(unless its a mystery cache) is going to be in the water.

[AZcachemeister]

If I see a cache with a SCUBA attribute, I'm going to look a bit closer at the listing and the logs.

 

Perhaps SCUBA isn't really required, but only suggested or advised.

 

Considering that I see free-diving records of up to 273 meters, one could argue that there are NO caches that ACTUALLY REQUIRE SCUBA!

 

I also don't think we need another attribute to dissect the finer qualities of just what must be done to get the cache.

 

I will leave it up the the CO to say what they think must be done (SCUBA, or swimming only), and if I have questions I will contact them and ask.