Attributes request: <5KM mark

[+Mikos88]

Hi all,

 

Since I really like geocaching, but don't like to walk far distances, I have a request: Is it possible to make a <5KM attribute? We already have the <1KM and <10KM marks, but not everybody likes to walk distances up to 10KM. Introducing the <5KM mark will make it easier to distinguish if I can walk the route or not. As well as for children, which is often depending on their age.

 

Just a thought, maybe it can be introduced. Thanks for your replies!

[Jayme H]

Hi Mikos88,

 

So glad to hear that you are having fun with geocaching!

 

I completely understand that it may be tough for some folks (including kiddos) to walk extended distances to find a cache. The current attributes are labeled as Short Hike(<1km), Medium Hike(1-10km), and Long Hike (+10km). The current Medium Hike attribute gives a wide range of distance possible, so we leave it to the CO to be clear in their cache description about the approximate length of the hike that a geocacher could expect. I recommend trying a search for a "Medium Hike" attribute, coupled with the "Recommended for Kids" attribute or "Takes Less Than an Hour" attribute to help you find a walk that isn't too long/tiring.

 

In lieu of an alternate "Medium Hike" attribute, I hope this information helps.

[+Mikos88]

I can understand that you guys leave it up to the CO to mention the numbers of kilometres, but it makes it hard to find geocaches that fit within my range. Of course you can expect the cachers to do some research before they start walking, but the <5KM mark would make it easier to find the longer walks between the other, where the recommended search will probably show me caches that are shorter than I would like to do (up to 5 KM is alright with me), since most 5KM caches will take longer than 1 hour. And to stick to Kids friendly caches all the time, nah...

 

Maybe you guys can think of it as a future feature. To repeat myself: I can understand that you leave it up to the CO's to mention the distance, but not all of them do so. That's why I think the labels <1KM, <10KM and >10KM are too general. Maybe in the future

 

Thanks for your reply anyway!

[+ChileHead]

I can understand that you guys leave it up to the CO to mention the numbers of kilometres, but it makes it hard to find geocaches that fit within my range. Of course you can expect the cachers to do some research before they start walking, but the <5KM mark would make it easier to find the longer walks between the other, where the recommended search will probably show me caches that are shorter than I would like to do (up to 5 KM is alright with me), since most 5KM caches will take longer than 1 hour. And to stick to Kids friendly caches all the time, nah...

 

Maybe you guys can think of it as a future feature. To repeat myself: I can understand that you leave it up to the CO's to mention the distance, but not all of them do so. That's why I think the labels <1KM, <10KM and >10KM are too general. Maybe in the future

 

Thanks for your reply anyway!

 

The bigger problem is that most people tend not to use attributes, or if they do may not choose to select the attribute for length. So if you are filtering out anything that doesn't have this attribute, you are likely missing out on the bulk of the caches that fit your requirements.

[+tozainamboku]

I can understand that you guys leave it up to the CO to mention the numbers of kilometres, but it makes it hard to find geocaches that fit within my range. Of course you can expect the cachers to do some research before they start walking, but the <5KM mark would make it easier to find the longer walks between the other, where the recommended search will probably show me caches that are shorter than I would like to do (up to 5 KM is alright with me), since most 5KM caches will take longer than 1 hour. And to stick to Kids friendly caches all the time, nah...

 

Maybe you guys can think of it as a future feature. To repeat myself: I can understand that you leave it up to the CO's to mention the distance, but not all of them do so. That's why I think the labels <1KM, <10KM and >10KM are too general. Maybe in the future

 

Thanks for your reply anyway!

Originally there was only one attribute "Significant Hike". Of course there were many people who found that simply saying "significant hike" really didn't help them much determine which cache they wanted or were able to do. So Groundspeak came up the the short hike, medium hike, and long hike. Initially, they got rid of significant hike and just mapped this to medium hike. Well that "broke" a lot of cache pages as the "significant" was really a long hike - or sometimes even a short hike but over very rough terrain. Eventually, they put back significant hike, but this shows the problem with changing attribute. If they add a 1-5 KM attribute the many caches already with 1-10KM will have to be "fixed". Many cache owners will simply leave their caches with the wrong attribute.

 

Another problem is that the distance is sometimes hard to choose. I have caches that would be a short hike if you drive a long distance on a dirt road in a high-clearance vehicle, but where most caches will do a medium to long hike from a easy to get to trail head and will find the other caches on the trail along the way. Which attribute do I use?

 

Distance is also incomplete. There are caches with short hikes but very steep elevation that would be difficult for many people while a 10K hike on level ground and a well maintained trail could be done.

 

At the time the distance breakdown was first implemented, some people complained that 1-10KM covered too big of a range. They argue that many people who would do a 2 or 3 KM hike would not do a 10K hike. But any division is arbitrary and the intent was to only give a rough estimate of the length. In the end, the seeker of the cache needs to check a map before heading out on any hike to get a better idea of distance and terrain.

[+Mikos88]

If they add a 1-5 KM attribute the many caches already with 1-10KM will have to be "fixed". Many cache owners will simply leave their caches with the wrong attribute.

But isn't that a problem with every new attribute (that overlaps with another)? I think that shouldn't be a reason not to introduce it. In the end people will start using it and all new caches are able to use this mark. Already existing caches can use the attribute.

 

Another problem is that the distance is sometimes hard to choose. I have caches that would be a short hike if you drive a long distance on a dirt road in a high-clearance vehicle, but where most caches will do a medium to long hike from a easy to get to trail head and will find the other caches on the trail along the way. Which attribute do I use?

That's an easy one; it's about the distance of the cache itself. A multi always starts at the first coordinate you give up. If it's a multi to walk, you start counting there. If it's a cache that people can use their car for, you explain at the cachepage how far they really need to walk. Or drive. For every solution there is a problem!

 

In the end, the seeker of the cache needs to check a map before heading out on any hike to get a better idea of distance and terrain.

I totally agree on that with you, as said before. But with that opinion you can quit using the attributes anyway. Because you need to read the pages, to start with. The attributes are there to see in a split-second if the cache is interesting for you by means of distance, puzzle, parking area, suitable for kids etcetera. And that's why I'm requesting a <5KM mark, which will make it easier to distinguish if I can read any further or stop reading, because the distance is more than 5KM. And that's what attributes are for, right? To make it easier to see if the cache fits my requirements...

[AZcachemeister]

What if it's 5 KM at T/4? Can you do that?

Seriously.

The attributes are meant to help narrow the field, not to define a distinctive set that any cacher with specific requirements could accomplish.

 

The attribute of <10 KM has already eliminated the bulk of the caches beyond your capabilities.

Narrowing the field further will require some effort on your part.

Groundspeak is all out of silver platters.