[Az-Geocaching] Just wondering, please no fighting
Jason Poulter
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:04:17 -0700
brian and i actually had discussed something like this...
a user rating system for the caches ... that way each user could
actually give their own rating of how difficult etc they found the
cache... and that way it would reprsent a more valid difficulty
level...then the one submitted by the cache hider...
jason
snaptek
Bill Tomlinson wrote:
> Andy
>
> Agreed. We would all be much better off having the functionality at
> geocaching.com. I was just pre-supposing ideas in the event that
> doesn't happen. We should find some way to organize and present a
> unified message to see if there really is power in numbers. (assuming a
> large enough group of people are even interested enough).
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
> [mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Andrew Ayre
> *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2003 10:48 AM
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Az-Geocaching] Just wondering, please no fighting
>
> Bill,
>
> Questions, checkboxes, etc. thats what I meant by guided format, so
> there is consistancy.
>
> I would volunteer to implement such a "text generation" system,
> however I think that geocaching.com is the best place to do it if it
> is to be included in enough caches (Arizona or otherwise) to make it
> worthwhile. If a high enough percentage of Arizona cache hiders
> (past and present) read this list and all put some effort in, then
> maybe it could work for Arizona without geocaching.com.
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
> [mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]*On Behalf
> Of *Bill Tomlinson
> *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2003 9:33 AM
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Az-Geocaching] Just wondering, please no fighting
>
> You've both made some very good points and sparked a couple of
> thoughts. Although I don't fall into the "handicapped" category
> your discussing, I'd like to throw in some ideas. I tend to
> take a broader view of the world. First, I like that you
> mentioned the word "limitations". I was going to propose that.
> When we say "handicapped", most people think of a small range of
> physical limitations. As you pointed out, there is really a
> huge range. Beyond that, though, I would even propose we
> include non-physical limitations. I know people that are
> paralyzingly afraid of heights. We've all seen rest areas and
> scenic lookouts that are paved and completely flat. A person in
> a wheel chair might easily be able to get a cache there if
> placed well, but a person afraid of heights might not go
> anywhere near the edge. There are lots of other limitations,
> but you get the idea.
>
> My second thought is on the use of text. I think that any way
> it is done would require some dependence on the hider. We
> probably wouldn't get the consistency needed to do any
> worthwhile searching. Besides, if it's too much work, people
> just won't do it. I'm wondering if we could do something like
> the travel sites do for hotels. Just lots of check boxes. Does
> it have a pool? A restaurant? Wheelchair accessible? I'm sure
> we could come up with a decent set of questions that would not
> be too imposing on the cache owner, but would still be useful to
> the finder. Then, it would be a simple matter to perform
> searches based on those well defined attributes.
>
> OK, I just had a third thought. Perhaps if getting anything
> done at geocaching.com is too difficult, maybe we could have an
> independent Arizona engine with these attributes. It would be
> more effort for the owners and would make searching slightly
> more difficult, but I bet many of us would gladly use it. That
> might even give geocaching.com the kick in the rear needed to
> make some changes. Especially if they know we members are
> questioning the value we receive for what we're paying.
>
> So, just a bunch of jumbled thoughts. I think if we had someone
> spearheading the effort, more would join in.
>
> CacheLess
> Bill Tomlinson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
> [mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Andrew Ayre
> *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2003 8:31 AM
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Az-Geocaching] Just wondering, please no
> fighting
>
> Well its quite simple really. The current system (1 star) is
> IMO inadequate because is relies on the hider knowing what
> "handicap accessible" really means, and lets face it - most
> people don't have a clue. If you go to the clayjar cache
> rating sysem thingmyjig, it describes 1 star as being
> wheelchair accessible. This is a perfect example IMO of
> someone writing an attempt at a handicap description and not
> having a clue. People in wheelchairs can often go further
> and longer than someone on crutches. IMO its a crude attempt
> at finding the "lowest common denominator".
>
> So rather than that, I think hiders should use some kind of
> guided questions or format to create an accurate textual
> (not stars!) description of surface type, inclines, height
> of cache off ground, whether you have to reach into a bush
> to find it, flat or inclined parking, etc. Armed with this
> information handicapped people can make up their own minds
> whether they can do it with their particular set of
> disabilities, and hiders don't have to try and take into
> account what little they often know about a massive range of
> different limitations that fall under the broad description
> of "handicapped".
>
> This information is obviously a spoiler for everyone else
> and could give away the hiding location in most instances.
> So this description needs to be encrypted like the hints or
> require clicking on a seperate link to view it, so
> non-handicapped people can ignore it.
>
> Finally, it should be possible to search based on this
> description or view just this description of all the nearest
> caches on a summary page, so handicapped people can quickly
> scan through the list, read and find the ones they can do -
> similar to what most of us probably do right now with the
> stars to some degree.
>
> Pros: allows handicapped people to quickly identify which
> caches they can do and be included more in the fun of geocaching
>
> Cons: takes away some of the fun of finding the cache
> because the description will likely give away the location.
>
> This is the best I can come up with. I'll be adding
> something like this to the caches I've hidden when I get time.
>
> Background: my wife is handicapped and often requires the
> use of crutches and a wheelchair. I have found it very tough
> to work out which caches we can do together and so far its
> been mostly urban ones. Its very dissapointing to get out in
> the backcountry to find a cache that should be ok for her on
> paper and on topo maps (I use the 3D function, profile
> function and distance measuring in Terrain Naviagator to try
> to assess the terrain) and find that she cannot do it.
>
> If anyone has a better idea, I would love to hear it.
> Suggesting similar things to the above idea on the forums at
> geocaching.com has been a waste of time based on the
> responses it gets. IMO geocaching.com falls completely
> short of attempting to include handicapped people and I
> don't think it would require much effort to implement
> something (anything!) better.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
> [mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]*On
> Behalf Of *gale and mike
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2003 4:29 PM
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com
> *Subject:* [Az-Geocaching] Just wondering, please no
> fighting
>
> [Snipped]
>
>
>
> For Andy/Groover/TeamSpike:
>
> As a person with physical limitations (for those of you
> who have seen me, I hide them quite well), I appreciate
> the difficulties in assessing handicap accessibility on
> cache pages. If you’ve posted ideas about this in the
> past with geocaching.com, how about posting them here so
> that all future cache hiders will have an idea of what
> would help the many handicapped geocachers in this
> state. One thing I like is a good description in the
> cache page (ie road requires high clearance vehicle,
> rock scrambling required, fairly level terrain). I can
> more readily determine if I can physically attempt the
> cache that way than just by sticking the handicap symbol
> on the easiest terrain caches. Perhaps we can compile a
> list of handicapped accessible caches and have
> azgeocaching.com note on their website who to contact
> for an updated list. I wouldn’t mind being the contact
> (on another e-mail address).
>