a user rating system for the caches ... that way each user could
cache... and that way it would reprsent a more valid difficulty
> 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).
>
(text/plain)