Difficulty 1 Vs Difficulty 2

[+Basement Troll]

I am very new to geocaching, just found my 3rd and 4th today. All 4 have been difficulty 1s. Was out today with a friend, and we tried to find two different caches that were difficulty 2s. I know we were in the right areas, based on the hints, notes that others left in their logs, etc, but we just couldn't find either of them. So how much harder is a 2 to find than a 1? Is it a big jump, or are we just dumb

Thanks!

[+Renegade Knight]

The caches I have the hardest time with are rated 2. I can find 4's and 3's and 1's but not 2's. Those just throw me for a loop.

 

I think it's a case of the owner knowing where they hid it, but not really having any clue how hard it really is.

 

A 1 should be in the first place you look.

A 2 should be in the first several of places you might look. But should not take you more than a few min to find.

Edited June 5, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[TCE]

So far, the 2's we've found have been very similar to the 1's we've found.

 

I think Renegade Knight's way to describe the difference between 1's and 2's is excellent.

[+5¢]

2's are twice as hard as 1's

[+QDman]

So how much harder is a 2 to find than a 1?

I'd say it's one harder.

[+El Diablo]

A 1 should be very easy to spot (A 5min search). A 2 will require some looking (A 10 to 20 min search.).

 

El Diablo

Edited June 5, 2005 by El Diablo

[Keystone]

Using the definitions from the Geocache Rating System:

 

Difficulty 1: "Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching."

Difficulty 2: "Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting."

[+Teach2Learn]

Let's say that each stage of a 3-stage or 4-stage multi only takes a few minutes to find, but if you include the additional hike of almost a mile, the cache ends up taking over half an hour. Difficulty level then increases to at least a two-star, correct? When I've used the cache placement rating system (Clayjar's), it always seems to work out that way.

[+Renegade Knight]

Let's say that each stage of a 3-stage or 4-stage multi only takes a few minutes to find, but if you include the additional hike of almost a mile, the cache ends up taking over half an hour. Difficulty level then increases to at least a two-star, correct? When I've used the cache placement rating system (Clayjar's), it always seems to work out that way.

There is hide difficutly and terrain difficutly.

 

If you hike 37 miles in and the container is in plain sight painted day glow orange. it's a 1 for difficutly, but terrain is a bit higher.

[+Teach2Learn]

Yes, I know some hides with long hikes may just increase the terrain rating, but the regular Clayjar hide rating system appears to include length of search time as a factor in determining the difficulty rating. Multis (referred to as "multi-leg" caches in the rating system) are automatically linked to the difficulty rating when you view the results. I've always thought that was because of the increase in overall time spent on the cache. Perhaps it's just a glitch in the rating system? Or maybe that's the way it's supposed to be?

 

Example: I entered a sample hide in the system, indicating the lowest level of difficulty/terrain in response to every question except the last about "How easy is the cache to find?" The "cache may be multi-leg" description is listed as part of the third option. However, selecting that response automatically results in the cache being rated a "3" difficulty regardless of the other answers. The only contributing factor appears to be time, even if that's only a few minutes at each stage.

 

edit: to add example

Edited June 5, 2005 by Teach2Learn

[+Basement Troll]

Thanks everyone. I think I should just focus on 1s for a while longer, to get a better idea of the various hiding places and ideas.

[+briansnat]

Thanks everyone. I think I should just focus on 1s for a while longer, to get a better idea of the various hiding places and ideas.

Though there is a rating system that takes some of the subjectivety out of it, many people don't bother to use it. Because of that I've encountered 3 star difficulty caches that were a cinch to find and I've DNFed 1 star caches after extensive searching.

[+AuntieWeasel]

Thanks everyone.  I think I should just focus on 1s for a while longer, to get a better idea of the various hiding places and ideas.

Though there is a rating system that takes some of the subjectivety out of it, many people don't bother to use it. Because of that I've encountered 3 star difficulty caches that were a cinch to find and I've DNFed 1 star caches after extensive searching.

I'll second this. I've done a couple of threes and fours that were no way more than ones or twos (which makes you wonder if the hider walked on his hands to get there or something), but I've been stumped by 1/1's. I tend not to look at the difficulty rating very often -- but I read all the past logs carefully.

[+Team Cotati]

A 2 is only marginally more difficult than a 1. In general, if you can do 1's, you can do 2's. Not to worry.

Edited June 5, 2005 by Team cotati697

[+reveritt]

how much harder is a 2 to find than a 1?

 

It's a non-linear scale based on the root of natural logarithms. A level 2 is 2.7182818 times harder than 1 level 1.

 

But seriously, don't worry about--just go for it. Personally, I pay more attention to the terrain rating than the difficulty rating.

[+WARedBear]

But seriously, don't worry about--just go for it. Personally, I pay more attention to the terrain rating than the difficulty rating.

I tend to agree with the above statement. Especially around the Pacific North West where a mountain could be involved. I have cached in several states and most of the terrain ratings were pretty much dead on. I would have rated a couple higher because of the briars and ticks involved but that is me

 

The difficulty ratings on the other hand seem to be the owners own idea of how "hard" he/she thinks the cache is. I have found 3 star caches faster than some 1 stars. When I travel to different areas I will base whether a cache makes my "hunt" list on the diff/terr ratings. I usually won't attempt a 3 star rating when I am out of town unless the description and logs lead me to believe it will be easier to find than posted. I have attempted 3 star difficulty rated ones knowing I might not have the time to find it...only to recover it in 5 minutes. I will write in the log that this cache would be rated a 1 star back in Washington. I think the local "normal" has a lot to do with how a cache is rated. We have a lot of cachers in Spokane and a lot of caches so our "normal" 1 star rating appears to me to be harder than 1 star ratings I have accomplished in other areas.

 

I would suggest reading the geocaching rating system and then honestly and objectively look at your caches hidden spot and determine how long it "should" take a cacher to find it. Will all cachers find it in the same amount of time....NO. I have one DNF on my list that I have searched for more times than I want to admit. In fact I think I am the only cacher who hasn't found this cache. Great...I just checked and it looks I will be the ONLY cacher to attempt and never find "Wearing The Green" by Patudles because it is now archived. Now I have to live with the shame and the DNF label the rest of my geocaching career.... ...thanks Patudles.

[+reveritt]

Previous log entries may be a better source of objective information about difficulty than the difficulty rating assigned by the cache owner. Always read the logs--especially the recent ones.

 

And don't forget seasonal factors. A cache that was level 1 when placed in the winter may be much more difficult to find with summer vegetation to deal with.

[+Basement Troll]

good point reveritt, the woods I was hunting in over the weekend are completely overgrown with some kind of evil prickly vine plant. Note to self: wear thicker pants next time....