Well, two out of three isn't bad
I partially agree with two of your points - incorporating more rating data (not just terrain rating) into the geocaching websites and that integration is the best way to go in the long term. So that's probably just one point of agreement then. It'll do for now
Do you think GAGB should just raise awareness? Or would you like their input to lead to measurable results?
So far from this thread I'd say we've had both - which is probably what we should really be aiming for.
I don't think anybody has disregarded your opinion - simply voiced their own, which differ in certain regards - and that's a good thing
It's a good thing because many hands (and minds) make light work - and different perspectives on a common goal generally help to produce results which benefit the greatest number of interested parties :socool:
I don't know how many active cachers there are in the world today but I expect it's into the millions by now. Is trying to educate them all to write cache pages which are more useful to disabled cachers or cachers with impairments going to achieve traction and measurable results in the short term? I doubt it.
I also wonder about consistency.
I've referenced this cache of ours previously but it makes a good example:
http://tinyurl.com/d7ll9xm
Think this might even have been our very first cache placement - and I was quite chuffed with the page - but I see now that I missed out the distance from parking to the cache - so that's something I might have to fix.
Now this one was easy to do - it's a managed park, it has a carpark at one end which corresponds with a significant natural entrance and also the visitor centre - so there's one painfully obvious start point and logical route to the cache. It would even be easy to write a bread-crumb-trail style guide to this one - and possibly remove any sense of adventure completely from the experience (that being just a minor point here)
But how should we go about providing accurate useful data where there are multiple routes to get to the cache?
Should the cache owner travel and document every potential route before submitting the cache for publication? Sounds like rather a lot of work and probably a very long cache page to read before you can decide if the cache is within your capability. Not that I'm saying people should write the shortest cache pages possible - but I think there has to be a happy medium as there often needs to be room for other interesting information too, geographical, historical, local legend etc. etc.
When I look at a cache page I know that I'll find the key information - coordinates, rating etc. in the same place on every page - right at the top of the page usually. I like it that way. Imagine if you had to search through the entire cache page scanning for the coordinates - wouldn't that be somewhat inefficient or even laborious? Especially as each cacher builds their cache pages according to their own ideas - which means no fixed standards at all.
So I'd put my money on a mechanism which ensured that the key information was found in the same place every time - so that I could find it quickly, sort the wheat from the chaff and avoid wasting time trawling through data which ultimately turned out to be useless.
And I think the handicache website does just that - so I reckon it might form a useful basis for anything the listing sites might incorporate themselves.
Another positive aspect to the handicache website, at least I think it is, is that EACH rater rates for THEIR perception of difficulty and terrain at different times and probably via various routes - and that these are averaged out over time. Whereas if we rely on just the cache page we perhaps have data for a single route taken on a single day by the cache hider and their subjective or even retrospective view of D/T on the day in question.
And we actually have some very good Handicache raters around my area - people who put a lot of thought, effort and detail into their ratings - and bring those vital alternative viewpoints.
One of my caching friends - hold on - let's scroll back and find the acceptable term - has an impairment which I know as BPPV. This impairment can have significant impact on my friend's balance and can make certain types of terrain a real challenge, which usually renders them off limits for solo caching missions. And that impairment informs said friend's handicache ratings - information which wouldn't even be available if that site didn't exist - no matter how much effort the cache owner had put into the cache page.
Sure, that information could be included in logs - but do you really want to have to trawl through a lengthy cache page, picking out useful information and then through all the found logs, hoping to see something useful from one of the previous finders? Or would you rather have that information neatly presented in a consistent, purposeful manner? I know which one I'd choose.
And no - I'm not smitten with that particular rating site - but it's there - and it offers a workable solution - and I'm not aware of anything better - so I'll continue to use it for now and, subject to more people coming forward to prove there's a real demand for the data - will try to convince listing sites to implement something themselves.
Apologies for the longish post - had a lot of time to think about it - and it represents a fraction of the thoughts I've had on the subject.