trahciul

I have done a cache by Ujax GC32BZE (archived) where the final cache is a box with a combination lock. This is an example of a 4.5* difficulty rating. In this case you can find the combination by finding the other caches in the series but it could easily be set so that you had to actually crack the combination or even pick a lock to get to the cache. This would be an example of a 5* difficulty cache requiring a "physical challenge"

"Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge" I think the "physical challenge" aspect of difficult ratings may mean that you have to "open a safe" or complete some sort of physical puzzle (perhaps this is where the maze idea is valid) rather than an exhausting walk. An analogy might be a squirrel climbing trees and running across ropes to reach a container of nuts. The trees and the ropes are the terrain challenge but retrieving the nuts might require a second (difficulty) challenge like pulling a string or removing pegs before the reward is achieved. The squirrel would perceive the difficulty challenge as both a mental and physical challenge. I think that is how you have to interpret the last question in the clayjar difficulty section If you take a cache on a Munro then unless the cache is in a safe or someone has constucted a maze on the summit then the difficulty rating is not a physical challenge.

Well the 70 year old with breathing difficulties should not attempt a 5/5. The problem is that he or she could do many of the 5/5s that exist at present. They could easily take a cruise ship to St Kilda and get a wheel chair to the old school house! If we are going to have a grading system then it should be absolute so that it can be used to choose caches that are within our capabilities. Surely that is the reason for its existance? Or is it just there to boost cacher's egos?

I agree with this idea but does that mean we need some new grades for the harder caches making the 5 terrain into a long walk? Personally I don't think we need any extra grades provided the 5 terrain is used correctly. The idea of explaining the difficulties in the description is ok for the terrain but not so good for the difficulty grade. Why would you need to use that if the grading system worked? I suspect that Groundspeak will not make any changes so we will just have to make the best of a bad system (or perhaps, misuse of the system)

In my area (northern Scotland) all the 5/5s seem to be over graded. I am getting on in years and feel that if I can do a 5/5 then it is not graded correctly. I can still manage to stuggle up a Munro as most of these are juat slogs. I think the only Munro that could have a 5 terrain rating would be the "In Pin" on Skye. Most of the difficulty ratings of the Munro caches are 1 or 2. I have recently been looking at St Kilda caches "Islands at the edge of the world" 1.5/5. The terrain rating here is not correct. You can visit St Kilda by cruise ship! You can go on a day trip from Harris! Ok, if you go by kayak it is definately a 5 but the grading should reflet the easiest way to do the cache. The answer to this grading problem is to make the computer grade the cache (clayjar). If this grading seems wrong then comment in the cache description.

I noticed that you commented on the rating of the cache. I think the rating system can be a bit misleading and, at times, even dangerously so. In this case, if you had to walk to the cache, it might be a 2/4 so the grading of 2/2.5 for a canoe seems reasonable since using a boat makes the cache easier! I am not sure if there would be any liability from the cache owner or Groundspeak for misleading ratings.

I think the cache should be rated 2/2 as you have done but you should say somewhere in the description that the cache is 10 feet high. Not to do so is a bit of a creul trick as cachers will expect an easy cache. If you leave the description as it is then I think the rating should be 3/3

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2ENH5 OK I have looked at the listing. Is it a 4 because it is possible to walk/wade to the cache? Have a look at this one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=1111446d-1033-4f5a-bfd3-67c47b7a14c1 St Kilda is not easy to get to but it has been done by kayak which would make it a 5 but, if you have the money, it can also be done by cruise ship or on a day trip from Harris.

What sort of terrain grade do canoe caches get. Is the canoe considered specialized equipment and skill making the terrain grade 5?

Went to another 5/5 today, The spar Cave, Skye ( GC347RC ) which, although a real adventure, still falls short of a 5/5 as far as I am concerned. The route to the cave is listed in the Walk Highlands website (http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/skye/sparcave.shtml) in which it receives a 4 boot grading (which ia not their highest grading!). The tide might present a problem but, even if caught out, will only cause a 12 hours stay at the cave. I arrived at the site about two hours early but managed to wade round the headland in less than 3 feet of water. The climb up the flowstone staircase looks like an ice climb but is surprisingly sticky. It is a pity that there is no cache placed but perhaps permission was not obtained for a box. I actually took one with me but left it at the wall. Anyone wishing to try this cache would be advised to take a good torch as small thing I bought from Tesco was almost useless. Well worth the effort but not a 5/5.

Odd that you felt 'tftc' was an adequate log for the only cache in the area that you consider to be a 'true' 5/5!! Mark Although I still consider this to be a true 5/5 I was not impressed with the cache. I realize that people like to claim 5/5s and tell the story about how they did it. The trouble is that in so doing they give away the location of the cache and this was the case with this cache. Another reason for not saying too much was that the cache was not found at the correct location. I try not to read logs any more.

I have just completed a search of all the 5/5 caches in my area (Inverness) and of the 26 results only one, Multi-cache Tooey's Adventure No. 1 (GCYD9H) is what I would consider a 5/5 and even this one is fairly easy (although I was tricked at the first stage!!) It seems that any caches placed on top of a Munro automatically become 5/5s! I heve conncluded that the 5/5 grading is not being correctly applied but I have no idea of how to fix it. MartyBartfast's suggestion is a good one but I am not confident that Groundspeak would apply it especially since our German caching friends seem to be able to get the ratings correct.

I don't agree that it is rated correctly. It seems to me that this is similar to the Everest example which I would rate as a 2/5. I would agree that it is a difficult cache and I don't belittle your achievment in finding it however it would appear from you description that the caches were not difficult to find (in fact the hint says that No 5 can be seen from the ground!) That suggest to me that the only difficulty in this cache is the tree climbing. Am I missing something? You could easily make this into a 5/5 by including a puzzle or by creating more imaginative hides (and probably less hints).

This one looks like the typical incorrect listing. It looks as thought he difficulty is mainly due to tree climbing and not the difficulty of finding the caches. Have not had the chance to look at the other listings yet.

I think the reviewers could give special care to 5/5 cache ratings as these tend to be more serious caches and it is often obvious that the rating is not correct. The idea of making completing a rating page before submission is a good one and would probably solve all the 5/5 problems.

I don't know what the reveiwer's remit includes but I would expect it is the full cache listing which must surely include the rating. You can certainly mention the rating in a log but not everyone reads the logs. The 5/5 rating is a bit special as it suggests that special equipment may be requred to do the cache or that finding the cache could take a considerable time after arriving at ground zero. I suppose this is why the rating facility was included in the cache description in the first place but if not rated correctly then it can cause confusion.

I think the problem here is not really what constitutes a 5/5 cache but the fact that rating is not accurately applied by many cache owners. Should reviewers check the grading of caches? Should they be told when a grading is wrong? Do you think the grading facility is necessary or desirable.

That's mine; I hope you enjoy it. It's a long climb without paths and depending on the weather, could be beyond a T5 into 'only the foolish' territory. When I set it I was under the impression Difficulty was 'over all' difficulty - how hard is it to get to and find. I appreciate this isn't the general consensus now, so it should probably only be a D2. If you use the clue, it falls to a D1.5. I would change the rating but I'm wary of messing up people's stats. Even if/though 5/5 isn't a truly accurate rating, it seems to be a cache people enjoy and remember as a tough challenge. Good luck with it and try to pick a nice day. I drove past this cache last week and the area brought back happy memories from my youth of climbing on Creag Meagaidh and staying in the bothy which I don't think exists any more. It is quite a long drive from my house but I made myself a promise to come back to do this cache as it is the sort of cache I really like. I don't agree with proctecting people's stats. Did any of them tell you that the cache rating was too high? Are they deluding themselves that they have done a 5/5? I hope this does not mean that they think they are capable of doing a real 5/5!

I tend to agree with Ambrel on this matter. I think the difficulty rating should reflect how hard the cache is to find perhaps because it is a puzzle or very well hidden. I think there are quite a few puzzle caches around which deserve the 5 star rating but I have yet to come across a "well hidden" that could be rated 5 star. To achieve a terrain 5 star would require special skills (diving, climbing etc). I think the Everest ammo box would be a 1.5/5. Many cachers think that because the cache is on top of a Munro that it deserves a 5/5 rating but I do not agree with this thinking. I am planning to do a cache called "Scotland's Hidden Treasure" (GC1VDNR) which is graded 5/5 but I expect to be more like 1.5/4. I mentioned this to Signyred about Liathach's Micro (GC33PNE) and he reduced the rating from 5/5 to 2.5/4.5 which is more appropriate although perhaps a 2 for difficulty would be better. If you use the rating system provided by Groundspeak then it comes out at 1/4! (which is probably correct) The only good thing about exaggerating the difficulty is that it puts the "number collectors" off trying the cache. I think what is needed in Geocaching are Invigilators to control cheating and misleading cache details.

Good luck enforcing that... You're assuming that there is a correlation between "not easy" and "better quality". Actually, you're assuming that there is a correlation between "listed on geocaching.com as not easy" and "better quality". If there were some sort of restriction on logging finds for "easy" caches, then cache owners would just list their caches as "not easy" (assuming they wanted anyone but newbies to log them). The listings would change, but the actual caches would probably change very little. I think it would probably be self enforcing but you are absolutely correct in that some "easy" caches are of excellent quality which sort of trashes my idea. However Groundspeak had installed a feature for highlighting beginners' caches so maybe the idea has been toyed with before. Probably best just to leave things as they are. People wishing to do FTFs will just have to get up earlier in the morning (or night) or try more difficult caches. There was a moving cache came into my area a short time ago which I thought was a great idea but this type of cache is no longer allowed. Perhaps a new type of temporary cache would allow more people to do FTFs

I think the same scenario exists in most areas. I am retired so I can go caching when most other cachers are working and can therefore get a few FTFs. Unfortunately there is a culture of trying to amass a great number of finds and FTFs and easy caches are easy picking for this sort of cacher. Perhaps after you have found 20 caches you should no longer be allowed to log easy caches. If such a rule was implemented then we might even see better quality caches being hidden.

Well, we are talking about FTFs where there are no logs. In the case of a cache which has not yet been found it may or may not actually be there. This, to me, is the joy of doing a FTF. There is no extra clues from the logs, no cacher's paths and the given coords might not be accurate. To read the logs for an established cache is really cheating (as is decyphering the clue...this is why it is encoded). Perhaps all logs should be encoded? If the cache requires maintenance there is a feature for notifying the owner. So, I disagree that logging caches is an important function. In fact logging a FTF may discourage other cachers from attempting the cache as does logging a string of DNFs. Where DFNs are concerned it may be better to e-mail the owner rather then post in a log. Some excellent caches have been archived because of a string of DFNs. It amuses me when owners claim that their caches have not been found. How do they know that? I expect very few of them even check the log books or the contents of the cache.

Yeah, me either. Good or not so good, everyone should log the find. I don't have huge numbers but I can't recall a single cache that wasn't "worthy of logging". Huh? Logging of caches is a new idea which is an unnecessary addition to the caching experience. It is used to create statistics which leads to eletism amoung cachers. There are many caches here that I find not worthy of logging like "It's good to talk" (see GC332EE). I am not even sure whether these caches are within the rules of geocaching as you don't require a gps to find them. FTF causes problems for someone who does not with to log caches as it gives false hope to cachers following who are trying to be FTF.

That's an interesting concept which I have been thinking about for some time. Have you not logged any finds and why?I log all my finds as soon as it's convenient (usually within a week, and always within a month so far). But I know people who are months behind in their online logs, and I know others who don't log online at all. Some are concerned about privacy. Some started geocaching before online logs existed, and just never started logging online. Some started with a Geomate.jr, and just never started logging online. # Yes, I have recently become a bit disillusioned with logging some caches. Some caches I feel are not worthy of a log and those I put into my ignore listing section. If you can't say anything nice about something then say nothing at all.