Difficulty/terrain Overrated?

[+wandererrob]

Has anybody else noticed ratings seem to be a little high on some, perhaps many, caches? Granted I'm not sure what the actual guidelines are other than a 5 pretty requires special gear (diving, climbing, etc) and 1 is pretty much walk up to it.

 

But that being said, I've found a few recently rated higher than what I felt warranted for their location. One recent find was rated 2.5/2.5. It was a fairly flat walk in and a pretty easy find. Easily a 1/1. Another was rated 2/3... the only reason, which was noted was b/c of a 4 foot "drop" to the cache location which was only maybe a 45 degree slope the last 10 feet of the approach. Dont' get me wrong, both were good caches in their own rights and I enjoyed them, but when looking for something a little tougher than a 1/1, I'd like to find something that isn't a poorly rated 1/1.

 

I suppose my real question is, am I off my mark here? If so, or even if not, does anybody have some good examples of what they think deems a 1, 2, 3... and so on? Both in terms of terrain and difficulty.

Edited July 14, 2005 by wandererrob

[+Ambrosia]

I'd personally see a cache rated too high, rather than too low.

[+briansnat]

I've seen it underrated and overrated. I recall a 1 star terrain (supposedly handicap accessable) hunt in Vermont that was a half mile hike, off trail where I climbed over fallen trees, crossed a stream and negotiated a swamp. I also found a 3 star terrain cache in NJ that was a 1/4 mike walk over a flat, well maintained trail.

 

It seems that a lot of cache owners are not familiar with the generally accepted guidelines.

Edited July 14, 2005 by briansnat

[+Ambrosia]

Have you seen this sytem for rating a cache?

[+Tidalflame]

The rating system is, of course, very subjective. If everyone used the automated rating system, we'd have some standard, but not everyone does, and not everyone who does sticks to it. I'll admit that I'm guilty of that - I don't really think that rating guide is comprehensive enough, so I'll always run through it with my caches, but I only use it as a guideline. I often change the results.

 

I also think it has something to do with local standards. I think people have a tendency to rate their caches relative to the caches they've found, so if you've got a lot of really easy caches in your area you might overrate your caches, whereas if you have a lot of difficult caches in your area you might underrate your caches.

 

Incidentally, I think underrating is as much as of a problem as overrating. I don't see too many terrain ratings that are lower than they should be in my area, but I've seen several really tough hides that are only rated at 1 or 2 stars.

 

Basically, I think you need to keep in mind that the terrain and difficulty ratings are only guidelines. You can't trust them too much.

[+wandererrob]

Have you seen this sytem for rating a cache?

Nope, haven't seen that yet. Cool idea though. And the examples provided are pretty much in line with what's in my head.

 

Although, even with everything set at it's lowest setting, it still sets terrain at a 2 OK, tried again, NOW it's says 1.

Edited July 14, 2005 by wandererrob

[+wandererrob]

Basically, I think you need to keep in mind that the terrain and difficulty ratings are only guidelines. You can't trust them too much.

Oh, I realize that. It just seemed that since returning to geocaching after a while away, yet again... things have changed a bit.

 

Guess I just need to adapt to caching in a new world.

[+KKTH3]

As someone who regularily caches with someone in a wheelchair - I can say that a 1 terrain is used far too often. I will never offer a 1 terrain on one of my caches that I know cannot be retrieved by a person in a wheelchair. I usually put 1.5 on a cache where ground zero can be reached by a wheelchair but the hide itself might need a more able body person to retrieve (in a tree or way low and under something)

 

If I hide a cache that I would not want my own 9 year old son to retrieve on his own - it is automatically a terrain of at least 3. I would not offer a terrain 5 unless there is VERY special needs required to reach the cache. A long hike in the mountains isnt enough - might warrent a 4 or 4.5 but not a 5 unless equipment, training, or connections are required. Everything else terrain-wise I base on where the situation lies in between those guidelines.

 

The hard part is the caches that might be easy for 95% of the trip but one particular obstical is much harder than the rest of the trip. If the cache was at the end of a 1/4 mile hike down a paved path but to retrieve the cache you needed to reach 10 feet down a 150 foot cliff along the beach - its not a 1.5 or 2 - the obstacle trumps all of that.

[+wandererrob]

I'm somewhat embarassed to say this (especially since one of my best friends is disabled and I've even taken her camping!) but I didn't even consider the accessibilty angle for rating terrain as a 1.

 

But yes, that makes perfect sense now. OK, so where I said 1 above... make that 1.5ish

 

Anyway, thanks for the feedback folks. Some very good points. And that rating thingy... very cool. I've got to remember that when I get ready to place my own cache. Though I may still tweak the ratings a bit if I feel it's a little off.

[+Patudles]

We all call the difficulty level different. I base mine as 1/1 means wheelchair accessable. If is is easy to get to but not easily gotten to in a wheelchair it jumps to a 1.5. There will always be a discrepancy for the middle ground. What would be a 3 for me would only be a 2 for the athletic. Some of us grandmas aren't as agile as the rock hopping guys. There is such a vast difference in age, and body conditions that it is going to be hard to be accurate for all.

[+Patudles]

Edited July 14, 2005 by Patudles

[+dogbreathcanada]

As someone who regularily caches with someone in a wheelchair - I can say that a 1 terrain is used far too often. I will never offer a 1 terrain on one of my caches that I know cannot be retrieved by a person in a wheelchair.

Same. A terrain of 1 should be exclusively reserved for wheelchair accessible caches. Just because everything but the last five feet are wheelchair accessible doesn't make the cache wheelchair friendly.

[robertlipe]

Terrain ratings are somewhat subjective and influenced by local factors of both topology and peer pressure. A 'difficult climb' in Alaska where you can see Denali vs one in Florida that offers swamps but no mountains is very different. But the bottom of that scale is pretty fixed with "1" being reasonably accessible in a chair. It's up to the finders to help lean on placers to be sure that ratings are appropriate. Mention it in logs and/or a friendly email to the placer. (And if you're really convinced something is rated wrong and the placer won't fix it, involve an approver.)

 

Give the seeker enough information to know what they're getting into. They'll know their abilities. For example, my wife is on crutches or a small electric scooter. For a cache that's 2 miles back a bike path but that is 20 feet off the path, she'll join me. For a cache that's 1/2 mile back that same path but 500 feet off that trail, she'll stay in the car. Parents with strollers and hikers with young children benefit from accurate ratings and descriptions, too.

 

Remember, there's only one minority that any of us can join involuntarily at any time.

[4wheelin_fool]

Its the area. I live in south Jersey and hid a couple caches that werent that difficult. A couple people got upset because they thought they were really difficult and under rated for terrain. I had based the terrain rating on what I encountered while caching in several states(Georgia, Tennessee) So I thought about it, and raised the terrain rating to match the caches that were local. Most of the caches have easy terrain around here, so I just made the terrain level in comparison to them. Now everyones happy. If you overrate the terrain then no one can complain about any surprises.

[+Ambrosia]

Its the area. I live in south Jersey and hid a couple caches that werent that difficult. A couple people got upset because they thought they were really difficult and under rated for terrain. I had based the terrain rating on what I encountered while caching in several states(Georgia, Tennessee) So I thought about it, and raised the terrain rating to match the caches that were local. Most of the caches have easy terrain around here, so I just made the terrain level in comparison to them. Now everyones happy. If you overrate the terrain then no one can complain about any surprises.

Well, actually, the OP is complaining about terrain rating being to high. That's this topic's title.

[WH]

Ive done a couple of 5/5 rated cachesand while the terrain difficulty was appropriate, the difficulty was not.

 

For example. One of the 5/5's I did required you to rappell off a cliff to reach the cache container placed on the cliff face. When you approached the site, you could easily see the ammo can up there on the cliff. This cache should have been rated a 1/5 because while the terrain needed specialized equipment, the difficulty of the hide itself was very simple.

[Yankees Win!]

My impression is that avid hikers/outdoorsmen have a tendency to underrate the terrain on their caches, and couch potatoes have a tendency to overrate the terrain on their caches.

 

My other impression is that despite their difficulty rating, few caches exist that warrant 2.5 difficulty stars or more, because very few people will spend even an hour searching for a cache once they've reached ground zero. I know I wouldn't.

[Team Armadillo]

Hmm. A number of people I know spend that much time at ground zero if necessary. I have had a few emails from people and phone calls when they have spent an hour or two already looking for one of my caches and can't find it. I have also spent that long looking for a cache.

 

In addition a well planned multi with difficult to find hides at each stage can easuly take an entire afternoon.

 

I would tend to agree that there are very few traditional caches that require that much effort, but there are a number of evil micros and well designed multis and puzzle caches that would take a whole afternoon potentially.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Hey folks, it's subjective. We had rather find one over-rated than under-rated. Difficulty, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[+briansnat]

Here are the generally accepted definitions. If you follow them it removes some of the subjectivity.

 

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 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.

[+Mule Ears]

It should not be surprising that a 10-point scale that tries to convey

• The entire range of human outdoor activity,
  
• divided by the entire range of human ability
  

should be inconsistent and "inaccurate."

 

I'm going to dissent from the notion that strict adherence to the GC/Clayjar scale is the best approach. Given that we're trying to communicate such a broad range with such a limited scale, it's good that local norms develop. And once you get to know individual local cache-placers, you understand that a terrain 3.5 rating by "mountainGoat73" is going to be more challenging than a 3.5 by "couchPotato88."

 

The most useful information comes from the text description, assuming that the cache-placer has taken the trouble to provide the essential info. It's also a good idea to click the topo-map link on the cache page and see what you're in for.

 

Finally, if you want to fix an erroneous rating, suggest a more appropriate # in your log. I've done this a handful of times, and in a couple cases triggered a change, or a chorus of agreement from other cachers (followed by a change).

 

(learn to type, Mule Ears )

Edited July 14, 2005 by Mule Ears

[+StarBrand]

I tend to find more under rated caches rather than over - on terrain. Many caches are over rated on difficulty.

 

Would agree that the physical condition of the hider plays a big role in the terrian rating. Thats why I appreciate at least a basic description of the terrain on the cache page.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I too, tend to find caches which are underrated on terrain. While I prefer tough caches, where the Terrain rating is 4 or over, and preferably 5, I would rather see a cache listing overrate the terrain than understate it, due to the relatively large number of folks with disabilities and families with small kids who cache. Even many technically able-bodied adults in our culture are not in very good shape, so why bother misleading them on terrain rating? I always use the cache scoring survey page referenced earlier, but I use that as a starting point, and then may modify the score a bit based on factors which the survey did not consider. I am glad that someone brought up this issue -- I feel that greater awareness of these factors can help many of the finders who make up our very diverse caching community. Thanks!

[+Kit Fox]

My impression is that avid hikers/outdoorsmen have a tendency to underrate the terrain on their caches, and couch potatoes have a tendency to overrate the terrain on their caches.

 

My other impression is that despite their difficulty rating, few caches exist that warrant 2.5 difficulty stars or more, because very few people will spend even an hour searching for a cache once they've reached ground zero. I know I wouldn't.

I have over 600 finds, and a bolt with a log hidden inside would be a 1 to 1.5 star difficulty cache to me. For a new cacher, that bolt may require multiple visits to the cache site, and hints also.

 

I think as cachers gain more experience with difficult hides, they tend to think cache difficulty is overrated. I'm of the opinion that the majority of Traditional caches never reach the level of 4 star difficulty and higher. I personally think a cache needs to be a long multi or a really hard puzzle before it reaches 4.5 to 5 stars in difficulty.

 

I prefer to overrate my terrain by half a star, to be on the safe side. I routinely email new cache placers, about their terrain rating of 1 star, when there is no trail.

[+Team Cotati]

I really do wish that more cache owners were familiar with and closely followed the generally accepted guidelines for cache rating. I also wish that it had been made more clear that a 2.5 difficulty hide meant that I was supposed to hunt for a cache for one hour. Glad to have found out that now at least. I wonder if that guideline is a linear calculation?

[+fly46]

I know they're not always rated right, but just remember - at least if the cache is rated harder than it should really be you'll be prepared.

[+fizzymagic]

I also wish that it had been made more clear that a 2.5 difficulty hide meant that I was supposed to hunt for a cache for one hour. Glad to have found out that now at least. I wonder if that guideline is a linear calculation?

That guideline is nonsense.

 

Difficulty in finding a cache is not something that can be measured by the time it takes to find the container. Given the accuracy of most GPS units, if you don't find the container in the first 30 minutes of searching, you're not going to find it on that trip. What you will need is a new idea or a new perspective.

 

The whole "x hours" idea has always annoyed me. I think it is counter-productive. It implies that people should keep searching the area exhaustively until they find the cache. That behavior is what gets cache areas torn up, with trampled plants and erosion problems and cops called.

 

Difficult caches should be the ones that make you think in order to find them. Hiding a fake rock in a rock levee is not a clever or original hide; neither is an "ivy cache" that expects finders to spend hours tearing up the foliage.

[+dogbreathcanada]

Difficult caches should be the ones that make you think in order to find them.  Hiding a fake rock in a rock levee is not a clever or original hide; neither is an "ivy cache" that expects finders to spend hours tearing up the foliage.

I couldn't agree with you more. I just posted a rant about this in another thread. "Needle in a Haystack" caches is what I call 'em.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=103077

Edited July 15, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+Tidalflame]

My other impression is that despite their difficulty rating, few caches exist that warrant 2.5 difficulty stars or more, because very few people will spend even an hour searching for a cache once they've reached ground zero. I know I wouldn't.

That reminds me of the time I spent more than two hours (as did my caching partner) searching for a cache that had a difficulty rating of 1 or 2 (can't check since the site is down). The coordinates were off by ~20 metres.

 

I have over 600 finds, and a bolt with a log hidden inside would be a 1 to 1.5 star difficulty cache to me. For a new cacher, that bolt may require multiple visits to the cache site, and hints also.

 

Heh, it also depends on whether or not you read the forums. The first one of these I did I found pretty quickly because I had seen the idea mentioned on the forums so many times. =D

 

Oh, and also, I agree with fizzymagic's latest post.

[+KKTH3]

HA! This topic switched over to the difficulty rating side of things. Well, that IS a lot more subjective as already mentioned due to knowing what types of hides there can be. The last find we had I really would not need to use a GPS for - I saw where it was located on the map and upon reaching the general area could tell exactly how I expected it to be hidden. I had a few options of course and it wasn't the first one I tried, but rather the second.

 

I try to hide unique hides for my area myself, but I have to admit that every hide I have done I saw a similar hide elsewhere before. I do base some of my more "difficult" ones based upon how out of the box it is where I live, but if the right person with the right experience comes by - I don't think any of my caches would rate higher than a 1.0 difficulty.

 

The point is, it is not only a function of cleverness that you hide with, but also a function of what your typical audience would be. Other cachers from outside the area can almost certainly disregard the difficulty factor since it may be a hard one that is really disguised in a way they would expect or it is an "easy" one hid in a way they would never expect - due to their prior caching experiences.

[+wandererrob]

HA! This topic switched over to the difficulty rating side of things. Well, that IS a lot more subjective as already mentioned due to knowing what types of hides there can be.

Well... I actually was going for both originally, but we sorta got sidetracked onto the terrain specifically.

 

But yes, the difficulty ratings are in the same boat.

[+Mule Ears]

I addressed only the terrain rating, because it could plausibly have some relation to reality. Problem is really one of scale--the range of actual terrain is immense, as is the range of human ability, ingenuity and resources.

 

Fizzymagic is absolutely correct on the issue of the difficulty rating: it's nonsense. How is the placer supposed to estimate how long it might take for someone else to find a cache? And it pays to be leery of good hides; they're usually done in a way that invites destructive searches--destructive to the surroundings, or to the searcher

[+dogbreathcanada]

And it pays to be leery of good hides; they're usually done in a way that invites destructive searches--destructive to the surroundings, or to the searcher

I hate these sorts of caches. I call them "Needle in a Haystack" caches. In my area, there are a few people who lay these sorts of caches out consistently. For some reason, they believe them to actually be a challenge for the prospective cache finder. In reality, finding them usually boils down to luck. Challenging, they are not.

 

These "Needle in a Haystack" caches also wreak havoc on the environment in which they're placed. Since the clue is so useless, often referring to the dominant natural landmark (trees, bushes, mossy logs, etc.) searches must be conducted on a door-to-door basis, which means visiting every item to which the clue refers. This in turn forces the cache seeker to move about the landscape in an ever widening area, and in doing so, trampling, stomping, and destroying the landscape.

 

These "Needle in a Haystack" caches are even worse in forests with thick canopies (which is predominant in my neck of the woods), thus the larger signal error and signal bouncing forces searches in even larger areas, which causes even further destruction of the environment (not to mention frustration for the cache finder.)

 

There's a real difference between a cleverly hidden cache, and one just dumped under one of a hundred possible logs/bushes/trees.

 

It's these sorts of caches that park agencies are concerned about, because of the damage they end up causing. And it's because of caches like these that caching has been banned in some parks around the world.

 

I guess to steer this rant back on topic ... there's really no advice on rating "Needle in a Haystack" caches. Searchers either luck upon them, or they don't. It could take one searcher 5 minutes, and another five DNFs and a sixth visit. There's really no skill to finding these sorts of caches.

[+TeamAO]

Many people try to hide caches to make a name for themselves as an awesome "extreme" hider. So if you see a 5/5 it's usually not a 5/5. Most of the time if you read the logs you're going to get a good idea of the diffuculty of terrain of the cache. It'sa really unreliable ranking system and I'm sad that it's all Handicapped Cachers have to rely on when judging a cache.

[Dinoprophet]

Ive done a couple of 5/5 rated cachesand while the terrain difficulty was appropriate, the difficulty was not.

 

For example. One of the 5/5's I did required you to rappell off a cliff to reach the cache container placed on the cliff face. When you approached the site, you could easily see the ammo can up there on the cliff. This cache should have been rated a 1/5 because while the terrain needed specialized equipment, the difficulty of the hide itself was very simple.

That's one of my peeves. From the description, even the famed Erta Ale Volcano cache should be a 1 for difficulty. Difficulty should only reflect how hard it is to find the location of the container, where "find" includes determining the coordinates (i.e. for a puzzle cache). Terrain should only reflect how hard it is to get to the location.

 

The guidelines presented in this thread do help and are what I use, but there's still some subjectivity. For example, how does someone with 50 finds know how long it will take someone with 300 finds to locate their cache? And while it may be true that the average cacher knows about lamppost micros, someone who hasn't seen one might think it's very creative and difficult (the first and only one I've found took me three visits) and rate it three stars. These are things to consider before getting too upset about a rating.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Dinoprophet

[+The Jester]

These "Needle in a Haystack" caches also wreak havoc on the environment in which they're placed. Since the clue is so useless, often referring to the dominant natural landmark (trees, bushes, mossy logs, etc.) searches must be conducted on a door-to-door basis, which means visiting every item to which the clue refers. This in turn forces the cache seeker to move about the landscape in an ever widening area, and in doing so, trampling, stomping, and destroying the landscape.

I don't think it's the cache that's at fault, but the seacher who can't look without "destroying the landscape". I've done a lot of the needle-in-haystack hunts without leaving the area disturbed. You don't have to tromp on bushes, you don't have to rip up plants to look around/under/behind - as the searcher it's your responsibility to protect the area! I've felt the desire to bring in industrial strength weed-whacker a few times, but still I try and leave as little damage behind as possible (it's better to tear your hair, then the plants).

[+dogbreathcanada]

I don't think it's the cache that's at fault, but the seacher who can't look without "destroying the landscape". I've done a lot of the needle-in-haystack hunts without leaving the area disturbed.

I find that hard to believe, especially with the thickness of the ground cover in some of the forests up on the West Coast. Whereas a cacher can try to minimize their impact, the moment you step off-trail you're starting to do damage immediately.

 

I do my best to minimize damage, but I'd never claim that my passage through any area off-trail was totally harmless.

 

And then, there's all the many people who come before and after who don't give a hoot. Judging by the many areas I've seen where these Needle in a Haystack caches lay, not many people are conscientious about the environment they're in.

 

Since the cache owner chose the area, the hiding spot, and the clue, I believe it's the cache owner's responsibility to ensure that the environment they placed their cache in remains protected and minimizes the damage with appropriate clues and hiding techniques.

[+CompuCash]

Have you seen this sytem for rating a cache?

Nope, haven't seen that yet. Cool idea though. And the examples provided are pretty much in line with what's in my head.

 

Although, even with everything set at it's lowest setting, it still sets terrain at a 2 OK, tried again, NOW it's says 1.

 

if you hide a cache - when you fill out that section for terrain and difficulty - there are links to Clayjar -

 

even this is subjective but at least if everyone uses it they would at least be a little more consistent - me thinks -

 

I post that my caches are rated by clayjar =

 

cc\

[+CompuCash]

Many people try to hide caches to make a name for themselves as an awesome "extreme" hider. So if you see a 5/5 it's usually not a 5/5. Most of the time if you read the logs you're going to get a good idea of the diffuculty of terrain of the cache. It'sa really unreliable ranking system and I'm sad that it's all Handicapped Cachers have to rely on when judging a cache.

 

not quite - are you familiar with Handicaching?

 

http://www.handicaching.com/

 

many of us have done a lot of work promoting that site -

I helped write part of a manual that is still being worked on -

 

check this cache for example - scoll down the the bottom of the colored section -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7f-ec9bf823dff6

 

cc\

[+The Jester]

And then, there's all the many people who come before and after who don't give a hoot. Judging by the many areas I've seen where these Needle in a Haystack caches lay, not many people are conscientious about the environment they're in.

And who's fault it that? Is it the hider's fault that some people "don't give a hoot"? Everybody has to be responsible for themselves and limit their impact.

 

BTW, The only way to get zero impact on the hide site is to place nothing but urban micros where there is nothing but asphalt and concrete nearby.

[+dogbreathcanada]

BTW, The only way to get zero impact on the hide site is to place nothing but urban micros where there is nothing but asphalt and concrete nearby.

I know. I don't expect zero impact. But I try to place my caches, and give directions/clues to minimise the impact.

 

I was commenting on your comment: "I've done a lot of the needle-in-haystack hunts without leaving the area disturbed." Which I found unbelievable.

 

You're the one who suggested that you were getting in and out of areas with zero impact.

 

I understand there are those that don't give a hoot about the environment, thus as a cache hider, I take some responsibility for that behaviour by making limiting the search time and search area.

[+treasure_hunter]

I'd personally see a cache rated too high, rather than too low.

Exactly!