Wheelchair Accessible Flag

[+futureboy]

Hi! I'd love to take my mom on some geocaching adventures. She can walk short distances on very good terrain, but other times, she needs a wheelchair.

 

Groundspeak would do a HUGE service to the handicapped community by simply adding a "wheelchair-accessible" flag to each cache. A ranking of 1 for terrain is supposed to indicate that it's fully wheelchair-accessible, but that doesn't seem to always be the case.

 

For the community, I'd forever love anyone who notes "this site is wheelchair accessible" in the notes for each site.

 

Groundspeak can fix this in two ways:

 

* Have an explicit flag that marks wheelchair-accessible. I'd love this as a search option, too. (I'd love a "sort by terrain" option, too)

 

* Or, alternately, on the page to report a new cache, simply put the text (Wheelchair accessible) by "1" for terrain so that people *know* that's a prerequisite for a 1 rating. This fix would literally take 30 seconds, but it doesn't fix already-existing caches that might be misreported. You could add a JavaScript confirmation dialog if you really wanted. "Hey, your terrain rating of 1 indicates that this is wheelchair accessible. Are you sure?" That's easy.

 

Thanks! I'm looking forward to more treasure hunting with mom!

 

By the way, I've seen the wonderful http://www.handicaching.com/ site, but it doesn't have most of the sites categorized. I encourage that all of you categorize sites you visit!

 

If I can volunteer my talents, I'd be glad to make said changes to the database and entry forms for free.

Edited August 7, 2005 by futureboy

[+briansnat]

What we need to do is make cache owners aware that a 1 terrain cache is supposed to be handicap accessible. If you find a cache that is rated 1 and is not, mention it in your logs. Between that and this attribute icon: (which is an option for cache owners) and handicaching.com most bases should be covered.

 

Any system can come up with will be subjective and prone to misuse, so why not just try to fix what we already have, flawed as it is?

 

As far as your own situation, if you see a cache that interests you and is rated 1 star for terrain, a note to the owner asking if it is accurate, or a previous finder, could be helpful.

Edited August 7, 2005 by briansnat

[+tabulator32]

I knew about the level one rating indicating wheelchair compatability.

 

I didn't notice there was an icon for it. Am I just not seeing the wheelchair icon when I click on these level one caches, or is it that people just aren't using them?

[+Ed_S]

I knew about the level one rating indicating wheelchair compatability.

 

I didn't notice there was an icon for it. Am I just not seeing the wheelchair icon when I click on these level one caches, or is it that people just aren't using them?

I just went and had a look at the attributes available to cache owners, and sure enough, it's there. It's near the bottom of the column, under "Facilities" though, but if you select the "Parking available" attribute, the wheelchair is the one right above it.

 

And wheelchair accessibility (or lack thereof, because of the last few feet required to find the cache) is why my easy caches are 1.5 stars. I think that would be the problem with wheelchair-accessible caches - most caches are not located right on the trail where someone in a chair could get to them. It's just too hard to find a suitable hiding spot. But someone who could maybe get out of the chair for short distances, if the terrain was level and not too cluttered with debris, might do better. Only way to be sure on that issue would be to check it out beforehand yourself, knowing what your particular wheelchair cacher is capable of.

[+robert]

I knew about the level one rating indicating wheelchair compatability.

 

I didn't notice there was an icon for it. Am I just not seeing the wheelchair icon when I click on these level one caches, or is it that people just aren't using them?

Some folks just aren't using them. The attributes feature is a great thing, but not sure that many know about it unless they happened to notice them on someone's cache page.

 

To futureboy, you can sort by terrain rating if you sign up for a premium membership. At $30 a year it's a bargain! Set up a pocket query of only 1 terrain caches, or all caches in your area and sort by the 1 terrain. The pocket queries open up a lot of options to you for finding caches you'd like to do.

[+briansnat]

et up a pocket query of only 1 terrain caches, or all caches in your area and sort by the 1 terrain. The pocket queries open up a lot of options to you for finding caches you'd like to do.

 

I think his chief issue is that these caches are often misrated. I've personally done many one star terrain caches that were nowhere near handicap accessible, including one that required me to bushwack down a steep hill, cross a stream and a swamp.

[+robert]

I understand that, I did a couple like that recently Just letting him know how to find the terrain 1 a little easier than scrolling through pages of a search. May be able to tell by the cache description if it's possible via wheelchair but the PQ provides a more convenient list of possibilities.

[+treasure_hunter]

You cant always trust the sign on the cache page. We went to a cache on time that said it was wheelchair accessible, and once we got to the cache is what was at the end of the concrete and down over the hill 5-6 ft in some rocks, now how is a handicap person suppost to reach that and get back in the chair without falling?

[+futureboy]

Thanks to all of you for your replies! I just hope that we can spread the message, and that more people will meaningfully note (and post on the cache page, maybe even informing the author!) if caches are handicapped-accessible the next time they go out! Do it for my mom, who is amazing and sweet!

 

Robert, thanks for the hints! I just gladly bought a year membership to be able to sort by terrain, and to spend more good times with mom! It's well worth any price, and I hope the Groundspeak people read this and take it as my personal economic vote for adding handicapped-accessible flags to cache descriptions. Thanks!

Edited August 7, 2005 by futureboy

[+robert]

futureboy:

 

Glad to help! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

 

[+CompuCash]

are you familiar with the Handicaching site?

 

http://www.handicaching.com/

 

Check it out and see if it is helpful for you. You can rate caches after you have been to them also.

 

I rate most of mine there and have a link on the cache page to this site.

 

example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...72-fa2cf7240461

 

scroll to the bottom and click on the gold sticker -

 

cc\

[+Team Neos]

I do use the rating system when I place caches, but it doesn't help that much when trying to decide if the cache is accessible. I have had enough friends who use wheelchairs to know that wheelchair accessible isn't as simple as being able to get the wheelchair to within one foot of the cache.

 

At one of my caches, someone who couldn't stand at all might be able to reach the cache from the wheelchair --if they had longer arms than I do and situated the chair just right. (Note: Lots of people have longer arms than I do, since I am only 5'3").

At another, you can get a wheelchair right next to the cache...but you could only retrieve the cache if you could stand and if you aren't shorter than I am.

A third cache is about 10 feet off a paved parking lot in a flat grassy area that gets really mushy in wet weather. It's also in a tree about 4 feet off the ground, so it depends on the wheelchair and the weather and the cacher's ability to reach up to 4 feet.

 

The OP's mother could certainly do these caches, but someone truely wheechair bound might not be able to do some of them. I feel less than comfortable saying "wheelchair accessible" on any of these caches, and rated them at least 1.5 for that reason...but I feel sure that a lot of cachers who use wheelchairs would feel that I overrated the cache.

 

My suggestion is to look at some of the caches rated 1.5 in your area also. I am willing to bet that some of them are just like mine--accessible for most folks with mild mobility restrictions. A quick note to the owner, as someone else suggested, would give you the info you need to make your decision.

[+briansnat]

One of the problems is that there are all levels and kinds of handicaps. I know of wheelchair using geocachers who will leave the chair and crawl the last 50 feet to a cache if necessary. Of course there are other wheelchair users who can't leave the chair no matter what. There are also people who are blind, or with CP, heart problems, emphysema and many other conditions who are officially considered handicapped, but aren't wheelchair bound and can probably negotiate terrain higher than 1 star. Heck I remember reading about a guy with no legs who was thru hiking the Appalachain Trail, but I'm sure he's eligible for a special license plate if he were to apply for one.

 

I think the mimimal definition of handicap accessible should be that a wheelchair user can negotiate the route and reach the cache without leaving the chair.

[+robert]

I think the mimimal definition of handicap accessible should be that a wheelchair user can negotiate the route and reach the cache without leaving the chair.

I agree.

[+Kai Team]

I knew about the level one rating indicating wheelchair compatability.

I can't see where people are coming to that conclusion.

 

On the cache listing page, it merely says: "1 is easiest, 5 is hardest".

 

The recommended Rating System doesn't mention handicap accessibility at all (it does mention wheelchair, but only in the context of one of the rating elements).

 

While I realize that a "1" cache may be handicap accessible (and I use both the attribute and a link to the handicaching site on my one cache that is accessible), I don't see where there is any requirement that a cache be handicapped accessible in order to be rated a "1".

 

As far as I know, a "1" rating means it might be accessible, but doesn't mean that it will be. Am I missing something?

 

Edit: correct punctuation.

Edited August 7, 2005 by Kai Team

[+Team Neos]

The recommended Rating System doesn't mention handicap accessibility at all (it does mention wheelchair, but only in the context of one of the rating elements).

 

If you click the button that says "Rate Cache" on the link that you provided, it computes the rating....and says:

 

Terrain rating: 1

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

[+robert]

Here is a great article written by a cacher in a wheelchair.

[+Team Dromomania]

Is it still wheelchair accessible if one must reach down to ground level to retrive a cache? Stating that fact (ground level) on the cache's web page might be giving away a big clue.

 

Just wondering.

 

I just looked at the handicache.com page and it seems one could indicate 0-3 feet off the ground using their system. I'll have to read some more to see how that system works.

[+Thrak]

Here in Chico there are a bunch of hides rated 1 on the terrain but they are down in a rocky creekbed. Not a chance in the world of getting to them in a wheelchair. I haven't cached yet since my GPSr won't be here until sometime this week. (I'm hoping for tomorrow but....)

 

I was hoping to find some that I could take my son along. He broke his neck in the Army 10 years ago. I'd love to be able to go pick him up at his house and get him out doing stuff more often but when I've driven around to the general area of local caches rated 1 terrain they haven't really been all that accessable and some, such as the creek bed ones, are obviously impossible.

[+robert]

I try to leave a friendly note on my log if I find a 1 terrain that isn't really a 1. Something along the lines of "This one should probably be a 1.5 on the terrain rating since it would be tough to get a wheelchair _______" (back here, down there, etc.)

 

A few (that I've checked) have been bumped to 1.5 after my note.

 

[+Kai Team]

The recommended Rating System doesn't mention handicap accessibility at all (it does mention wheelchair, but only in the context of one of the rating elements).

 

If you click the button that says "Rate Cache" on the link that you provided, it computes the rating....and says:

 

Terrain rating: 1

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

Thanks for pointing that out. That statement is more a flaw in the wording of the rating system results than a "prerequisite for a 1 rating". Another valid way of wording that result is: "Terrain may not be paved, may have a few steep slopes, and could be a 1/2 mile hike". And as others have pointed out, it's not just the terrain rating that matters - it's also the placement of the cache. The rating system says a "1" difficulty means: "Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious", which says nothing about accessibility. GC.com does not require a 1/1 cache to be handicapped accessible, and we shouldn't fault cache owners for placing 1/1 caches that aren't accessible!

 

As futureboy pointed out in the OP, the problem lies in the lack of an integrated rating system that specifically addresses accessibility.

 

Given that most cachers don't follow these forums, A very simple and more effective solution would for gc.com to add a link to the handicaching rating scale on the cache edit page (like the existing link to ClayJar's rating system) and encourage people to use it, then post the gc.com wheelchair attribute to the cache page when appropriate. You might want suggest that in the Geocaching.com Web Site Forum, which is monitored by TPTB at gc.com.

 

Unfortunately, gc.com has gotten more legalistic since ClayJar's system was linked to and they may not add a new link to a site they don't control. Another alternative would be to contact ClayJar and see if he would incorporate a handicaching-like system in his scale (which is already linked to by gc.com), or add a link from his scale to Handicaching.com, or at least clarify what is meant by a 1/1 rating (i.e. "May be handicapped accessible - please add handicapped attribute to your cache page if it is").

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

so here's the problem does 1 rating mean the person in the wheel chair could reach and do this cache all by himself or just they could come to the spot of the geocache?

[+Team Neos]

I am getting confused here, I think. Why would a cacher with a handicap be limited to finding only 1/1 caches? If you really read through the clayjar rating system, it spells out exactly what it means. I think you have to be looking for places to be ultra picky about the meaning to find real fault with the system--and you still have to use common sense to adjust anything you are uncomfortable about.

 

Using the clayjar rating system, I could theoretically come up with anything up to a 5/1 cache that was handicap accessible (if the challenge to the cache was mental, rather than physical).

 

Example and definitions of difficulty from the clayjar system:

Your cache has been rated 5/1.

 

Difficulty rating: 5

* 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: 1

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

 

Note that the terrain rating of 1 wasn't derived by arbitrary means and isn't really as open to interpretation as we were suggesting. To get the "1" rating I had to answer the following questions the way that I show below (I have cut and pasted this from the page. Italics are the question, regular text is my response. Bolded are things that I think are important to note and blue is where I added a comment about a problem that I see):

 

Geocache Rating System

Answer the following questions based on the most difficult parts of the cache:

 

Is specialized equipment required? No

 

Is an overnight stay likely? No

 

What is the length of the hike?

Less than 1/2 mile

This is the length of the hike from the most logical parking area to the cache.

 

What is the trail like?

Paved pathways

Asphalt, concrete, or boardwalks.

But here is a potential problem with the rating system

How is the the most difficult part of the cache? If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet.

 

Is the path bushy or overgrown? Not at all

Overgrowth refers to any plant or other substance that impedes the path. Keep in mind that conditions change; rate based on your understanding of worst-case conditions.

 

What is the terrain elevation like?

Basically flat

Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.

How hard is the steepest part of the cache?

 

The rest of the rating has to do with the difficulty and is listed at the first part of this post. The challenge includes mental challenge as well as phsyical (EX with some puzzle caches the difficulty is in solving the puzzle, not in the rigor at the cache site).

 

How easy is it to find the cache?

Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious.

Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while.

Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location.

Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to find

Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge.

 

Please consider visibility, accessibility, and relative signal strength due to tree cover or other obstructions when answering this question.

 

What I find difficult is trying to decide what handicapped accesible really means in terms of the person with the handicap actually being able to access the cache physically, and I don't think any rating system will ever be able to rate that for every cacher.

[+Kai Team]

...What I find difficult is trying to decide what handicapped accesible really means in terms of the person with the handicap actually being able to access the cache physically...

Exactly - the ClayJar system was not designed to designate a cache as truly handicap accessible, which is why it is a flaw in the system to use the term "Handicapped accessible" in the results for a terrain of "1". There's more to being handicapped accessible than a terrain of "1", and as you pointed out, there are even problems with that rating (ignoring the last few feet).

 

The Handicaching.com rating system is much better because it provides specific information to the handicapped cache seeker about potential barriers: distance to the cache, route surface, route slope, route obstructions and cache height. It also allow for comments. See, for example, the Handicaching Rating on our cache.

 

These ratings provide the cache seeker with specific information so that they can decide for themselves if they're able to get to the cache. Given the individual variations in handicaps, that's the only way to do it. That's how a rating system is able to help every cacher - by giving them the information they need, rather than a conclusionary statement that a cache is "handicapped accessible" because it has a terrain rating of "1"!

 

The geocaching site, and the ClayJar tool, as good as they are, just do not provide enough information for handicapped people. It's pointless to debate what a terrain rating of "1" means for the handicapped - it doesn't mean anything, as futureboy pointed out in the OP. The solution is a better rating system, or use of one (like Handicaching.com) that was designed for the purpose!

[+Team Spike]

The handicaching.com system allows for a person who is handicapped to look at the multi-dimensional ratings and decide what they are able to do, rather than the onus being on the cache hider to decide what is possible in a very limited way.

 

Many people's disabilities vary from day to day. Also if a cache is wheelchair accessible, is it also crutch accessible? For example, a wheelchair user might be able to do a 1 mile round trip on level ground without a problem, but could someone using crutches?

 

Therefore handicaching.com doesn't state that a cache is "handicap accessible" because unless you are following the ADA regulations, it doesn't mean much. Instead it aims to provide more information so handicapped users can make more informed choices.

 

Don't forget that handicapped people like challenges too. I bet that many non-wheelchair using people with other disabilities might find a 200ft walk on a level surface a bit boring for them.

 

So please don't limit consideration to only wheelchair users. There are a lot more aspects of disabilies than just that.

 

Andy

Edited August 12, 2005 by Team Spike

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The problem with terrain ratings is that too many people think a "1" is easy. A "1" has nothing to do with being easy, it has to do with being handicapped accessible. A "2" also has nothing to do with being easy. it has to do with being "suitable for kids". If more people would use the rating system this wouldn't be an issue.

[+CompuCash]

The problem with terrain ratings is that too many people think a "1" is easy. A "1" has nothing to do with being easy, it has to do with being handicapped accessible. A "2" also has nothing to do with being easy. it has to do with being "suitable for kids". If more people would use the rating system this wouldn't be an issue.

 

While a #1 is generally accepted as being handicap accessible and I agree in general with that. Kai Team says about the same thing I am saying here. He also mentions clayjar and provides a link. While he is correct, that there is no notice, rule, nor mention of a #1 rating requiring accessibility, I use it for that purpose

 

GLAYJAR, which is the generally accepted cache rating system says nothing at all about children. Did a search - the word child does not occur on the clayjar page. I have never heard anything about a #2 terrain having anything to do with children.

 

Wheelchair does, however, appear in the section on terrain - see Terrain, next to the last item, and quoted below. But does not say anything at all about requirements. I quote in part "Basically flat. Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc. ". This gives a lot of latitude for a #1 rating. I have seen a lot of strollers, and many more bikes in places a wheelchair wouldn't or couldn't go.

 

Clayjar speaks only of elevation changes for the terrain rating.

Some elevation changes

Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope. 

 

Steep elevation changes

Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up. 

 

Severe elevation changes

The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside. 

 

While Clayjay is not accepted by everyone, nor used by everyone, it is the only real tool we have at present for rating caches. I use it and mention it on all of my cache pages. Since clayjay gives more 'resolution' to the cache rating than is allowed for choices on the cache page, I always report the actual clayjay rating on the cache page.

 

cc\

Edited August 12, 2005 by CompuCash

[+Team Spike]

I quote in part "Basically flat.  Only slight elevation changes.  Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc. ".  This gives a lot of latitude for a #1 rating.  I have seen a lot of strollers, and many more bikes in places a wheelchair wouldn't or couldn't go.

Yes, a wheelchair requires roughly a 3 foot wide path to be safe. Bikes and strollers don't.

 

Andy

[+Kai Team]

The problem with terrain ratings is that too many people think a "1" is easy. A "1" has nothing to do with being easy, it has to do with being handicapped accessible. A "2" also has nothing to do with being easy. it has to do with being "suitable for kids". If more people would use the rating system this wouldn't be an issue.

Please reread my August 8th Post before offering a rationalization for why geocaching.com doesn't need to change anything. As others have pointed out, your interpretation of the ratings just doesn't sync with reality.

 

It's not the users' fault - it's the site's. Plain and simple. If gc.com doesn't want to fix it, that's their perogative, but don't try to blame the nameless masses for a sloppy rating system ("The problem is...that too many people think...").

[Jeremy]

It's not the users' fault - it's the site's. Plain and simple. If gc.com doesn't want to fix it, that's their perogative, but don't try to blame the nameless masses for a sloppy rating system ("The problem is...that too many people think...").

It is neither the user nor the site's fault, nor is it a "sloppy" rating system. It is what it is and was never designed as a catch all rating system for terrain. It was originally mirroring how rock climbers rate terrain, however loosely. You use it to say "hmm.." not "aha!" as I've posted before.

 

But you wrote pretty much that in the post you linked to above, so I'm scratching my head as to why the rating system is "sloppy" now. It is only sloppy if you mis-apply it as a handicapped rating.

 

Many folks do do consider difficulty rating of 1 as "handicapped accessible" but I am just indicating that was not the goal of the difficulty or terrain ratings. If folks want to apply that meaning and suggest it to others it doesn't seem to hurt.

 

The attribute, however, is cut and dry about wheelchair accessible.

[+geekster]

Ditto what Jeremy said, I quit counting the number of caches I have looked for that had a completely ridiculous terrain rating assigned to them, its obvious that some hiders either have never looked at the guidelines, or simply don't care, there are a wide range of people in this sport and when you hide a cache you need to remember that, and it doesn't only apply to a Level 1 rating....

[+Kai Team]

It's not the users' fault - it's the site's.  Plain and simple.    If gc.com doesn't want to fix it, that's their perogative, but don't try to blame the nameless masses for a sloppy rating system ("The problem is...that too many people think...").

It is neither the user nor the site's fault, nor is it a "sloppy" rating system. It is what it is and was never designed as a catch all rating system for terrain. It was originally mirroring how rock climbers rate terrain, however loosely. You use it to say "hmm.." not "aha!" as I've posted before.

 

But you wrote pretty much that in the post you linked to above, so I'm scratching my head as to why the rating system is "sloppy" now. It is only sloppy if you mis-apply it as a handicapped rating.

Thanks for weighing in Jeremy. I referred to the rating system as "sloppy" because experienced folks are making unequivocal statements that the rating system means something that it doesn't mean. If a system can be (mis)interpreted so widely, it isn't very precise (as you've said). You called it "loose" and I called it "sloppy" - same thing.

 

Many folks do do consider difficulty rating of 1 as "handicapped accessible" but I am just indicating that was not the goal of the difficulty or terrain ratings. If folks want to apply that meaning and suggest it to others it doesn't seem to hurt.

It does hurt beacuse it misleads handicapped cachers. Look at the OP. A rating system is useless at best and misleading at worst if everyone has their own understanding of what it means.

 

The attribute, however, is cut and dry about wheelchair accessible.

Not really. Users don't know what "wheelchair accessible" means, because people who use wheelchairs have a variety of abilities - some can leave the chair and walk a short distance, some cannot. Some have full use of their arms, some do not. Etc.

 

Assuming that everyone who uses a wheelchair is exactly the same is stereotyping. Assuming that a simple attribute is equally applicable to all wheelchair users is ignorant.

 

It would seem to be a simple matter to clarify these issues on gc.com, either by refining the rating system or by linking to the handicaching system for use of the accessible attribute. That's all I'm suggesting. No system is perfect, but this one could easily be made better.

[+Renegade Knight]

so here's the problem does 1 rating mean the person in the wheel chair could reach and do this cache all by himself or just they could come to the spot of the geocache?

One terrain would mean they can get to the cache and reach the cache. The cache may be a 5 star hide that they can't find, but if they did they could reach it.

 

That's my take.

[+Kai Team]

Ditto what Jeremy said, I quit counting the number of caches I have looked for that had a completely ridiculous terrain rating assigned to them, its obvious that some hiders either have never looked at the guidelines, or simply don't care, there are a wide range of people in this sport and when you hide a cache you need to remember that, and it doesn't only apply to a Level 1 rating....

Which is precisely why I'm suggesting gc.com make the rating system a little better. It will never be perfect, if for no other reason than because not everyone uses it, but it could easily be made better. Where's the harm in doing that?

 

I really don't understand the argument that "because the system is weak, we shouldn't try to improve it".

[+Team GPSaxophone]

While a #1 is generally accepted as being handicap accessible and I agree in general with that.  Kai Team says about the same thing I am saying here.  He also mentions clayjar and provides a link.  While he is correct, that there is no notice, rule, nor mention of a #1 rating requiring accessibility, I use it for that purpose

What?

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

GLAYJAR, which is the generally accepted cache rating system says nothing at all about children.  Did a search - the word child does not occur on the clayjar page.  I have never heard anything about a #2 terrain having anything to do with children.

Really? What's this then?

* 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.

Go to the ratings link and click submit on the bottom. It's all there.

Edited August 13, 2005 by Team GPSaxophone