Terrain Rating Question

[+Thot]

I went out yesterday for a new cache in my area. You first walked about 2-3 tenths of a mile on a good condition soft shredded pine bark trail. Then you had to go 200 feet off the trail into the woods. It’s always difficult to describe such a condition. Here’s the best I can do. The trees averaged 6-8 feet apart with some shrubbery between. The area had never been cleared, so you had to navigate around or over many fallen trees and saplings. The uneven ground was littered with fallen limbs and light undergrowth.

 

What’s would be the terrain rating for this cache?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Did you try the ratings link?

[+Thot]

Did you try the ratings link?

I tried using clayjar's ratings, but they didn't seem to exactly fit. For example nothing seemed to discuss forested areas at all. The "Is the path bushy or overgrown" seems to deal with bushes and weeds not forest with fallen wood.

 

Also, it doesn't make a distinction between bushwhacking through 30-50 feet of hard terrain and 1000 feet.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Thot

[+M&DofKJE]

I'd go 3/3.5

[+Thot]

I'd go 3/3.5

That was my guess. He has it rated at a 2.

[+Mudfrog]

A 3.5 terrain rating seems a bit overkill. It may be that we are just used to this since so many of the caches around here are hidden out in the woods. The hike would have to be longer, the forest would have to be thicker, and/or there would have to be some pretty good elevation changes to get a 3.5 difficulty rating around here!

 

This is the description for a 3 rating:

 

Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

 

Rating should be lower than above since only 200 feet (400 feet rountrip) of the the hike involves stepping over dead trees and maneuvering through light overgrowth. Its more of a judgement call here...

 

The cache that Thot describes doesnt sound very difficult at all. I guess you could squeak out a rating of 3 but it sounds a bit lower to me!

[+briansnat]

Hard to say without being there, but it sounds like something I'd rate a 2.

Edited June 28, 2005 by briansnat

[+Markwell]

When I cache with my two sons (especially the 5 year old), I would avoid taking him on a cache that was rated 3 or higher. My son can walk on a level path for about a mile (so half-mile out and half-mile back).

 

Given your description of the cache, that sounds like some of my typical favorite cache in Illinois. I'd rate that at about a 2 or 2.5 - easily doable by my 5 year old.

 

Remember to also look at the descriptions, not just the questions. The DESCRIPTIONS are what we came to a consensus on many, many moons ago. The questions and the questionaire were an attempt to quantify those descriptions.

 

*Handicapped accessible - Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a ½ mile hike is required.

**Suitable for small children Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.

***Not suitable for small children The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.

****Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Markwell

[+AtoZ]

sounds like a 2 or 2.5 to me. If your not having to climb then it is a piece of cake.

cheers

[+M&DofKJE]

Well, I once gave a 1 a 5 to discourage people from going for a cache. It was in the median of a very busy road. Since the introduction of attributes, I changed it to a 1 and marked it as a dangerous area.

[+Thot]

Thanks for the replies. Almost all of the caches I've done are in parks near urban areas. Some have fairly extensive wooded areas but I had only seen one where where the cache was more than 80 feet into the bush, and it was rated a 2.5. Some have longer excursions into wooded areas but in these cases the forest floor is reasonably clean. This may have given me a different calibration for this kind of cache.

 

It still seems to me that a weakness in the rating guidelines is that the distance through hard walking has no effect on the terrain difficulty.

 

The rating does not distinguish between 2 miles of bushwhacking like this and 2 miles on a hiking trail including 100 feet of hard walking.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Thot

[+ADKcachers]

It's all open to individual interpretation. Isn't diversity just splendid?

[+StarBrand]

This to me is the most difficult question with the ratings. Do I rate the entire trail as a whole? or do I concentrate on rating the worst 50 feet of it?

 

I have a 3.5 terrian cache but the bad spots only account for 2 steep slippery slope sections - the rest is fairly level and hard packed. As for myself, I want to know about the worst of the trail.

[+tabulator32]

Would it be possible to include a pic or two of the general area here in the forum so we can get a better idea?

[Team Armadillo]

Personally I find it helpful in a situation like that where the cache owner provides a description of the terrain in the lisitng. That eliminates ambiguity and helps you understand what you are in for. For example:

 

Lincoln's Eiffel

[+Thot]

Would it be possible to include a pic or two of the general area here in the forum so we can get a better idea?

Excellent suggestion. When I posted this question I wished I had taken pictures, but I didn't and the cache isn't real near me. I probably won't go back there for a while.

[+briansnat]

This to me is the most difficult question with the ratings. Do I rate the entire trail as a whole? or do I concentrate on rating the worst 50 feet of it?

 

I have a 3.5 terrian cache but the bad spots only account for 2 steep slippery slope sections - the rest is fairly level and hard packed. As for myself, I want to know about the worst of the trail.

I think you have to take short sections into consideration in the overall rating. However I personally wouldn't rate it as high as I would if the entire hike was similarly difficult.

 

For example I have one cache that is mostly a 2.5 star hike. Its a marked trail that goes uphill most of the way with a few rugged spots, but nothing out of the ordinary. The last 100 feet however require climbing, use of the hands and negotiating large boulders. I gave it 3.5 because of the last 100 feet. If the entire hike was like that I'd probably give it a 4.5.

[+Greymane]

Presentation is everything. Examples of the same cache:

 

1. A short walk along a sidewalk in a small park near some large trees.

 

2. The cache is located approximately 500 feet from the safety of the parking lot. Be careful when exiting vehicle due to the proximity of potential moving vehicles. There is a significant elevation change (~ 6 inches) to the main trail. While the terrain is mostly sidewalk, many slabs are cracked or not perfectly even. Children or domestic animal playing nearby may endanger visitors due to inattention. The groomed appearance of the area can be misleading. Stay on the path as sprinkler heads can be a trip hazard. During storms, large limbs have been known to fall from trees without warning.

 

Kinda makes a huge difference, doesn't it?

[+Team Benhamtroll]

I've often found difficulty rankings to be deceptive, since people will often rate them according to their own interpretations.

 

For example: Bat Cave Over Old I-84

 

This terrain is marked a 3. Getting to the cache involves scrambling on all fours about 300-400 feet up skree, at a very steep angle. Personally, I would have given it a 4, 4.5.

[CoyoteRed]

I tend to look at ratings as a range, not a pin point.

 

Because of interpretation and one's own conditioning will it be different for different people. The CJRS is a good start and adjusting for variables is good, but when I see something rated as a 3 star I will expect anything from 2 stars to 4 stars.

 

The rating only gives my a "feel" of what to expect.

[+tabulator32]

I tend to look at ratings as a range, not a pin point.

 

Because of interpretation and one's own conditioning will it be different for different people. The CJRS is a good start and adjusting for variables is good, but when I see something rated as a 3 star I will expect anything from 2 stars to 4 stars.

 

The rating only gives my a "feel" of what to expect.

That's pretty much how it goes for me as well. I don't really look at the rating unless it happens to be a 4 or 5 star, in which case I make a mental note to be sure I bring my hiking stick, my gear bag, and wear the right shoes.

 

[+pghlooking]

To us this sounds like a 2 rating. We would take the kids and we use them as our own rating system. They are 2.5 and 4. 200' bushwack isn't bad, especially after a well groomed trail.

[+Nushiekitty]

The reasons other posters have mentioned is why I am starting to believe that if we rated the terrain on a ten star scale we might be able to get a better idea as to what the hike is really going to include. For instance under the current system a five star rating typically means that special equipment is needed, now I see a difference in difficulty if a boat is needed in comparison to repelling gear. A ten star rating might help eliminate some of this. I have also been to many caches that are rated a one star in terrain but there is no way that a wheelchair would be able to get to the cache location.

[+Thot]

Okay. I'm interested enough in this issue that I drove back to the location and took pictures. I took shots at many possible entry points into the bush. Occasionally I walked 30 or so feet into the bush and took a few shots. It all looks the same. I’ve tried to give fair/balanced samples of the general area. There are a few points of entry where it’s clearer but they are exceptions and will only last 20-30 or so feet. There are a similar number of spots where it’s worse and it would very difficult to enter. The over 200 feet will be like the pictures. I don’t think the pictures tell a fair story either. They seem to make it look worse than it is, but the impression from the pictures is closer than my words. Try to combine my words with the pictures, weighting the pictures more than the words.

 

http://factsfacts.com/terrain

Edited June 28, 2005 by Thot

[+Criminal]

I'd go 3/3.5

That was my guess. He has it rated at a 2.

200 feet? A 2 seems appropriate.

[+Greymane]

After looking at the pics, I would have to say MAYBE a 2.5, but no more. (Granted, I haven't been there.)

[+Stunod]

After looking at the pics, I would have to say MAYBE a 2.5, but no more. (Granted, I haven't been there.)

I agree.

[+StarBrand]

2.5 seems ok

[+briansnat]

Judging from the photos I'd probably rate it a 2 for terrain.

[+Fergus]

sounds like a 2 to 3 to me.

[+Mudfrog]

As i said above, alot of caches around here are in the woods and we've searched for plenty where the terrain looked very similar to that in your pictures. A rating of 2 would pretty much cover it.

[+tabulator32]

I'd say 2 or 2.5

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to get the pics! That definitely helps.

 

Good luck with your cache!